Judgment :- 1. On two grounds eviction was sought against the revision petitioners-(1) owners occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; and (2) sub-Letting. As far as the trial court viz., the Rent Control Court was concerned, it dismissed the application for eviction holding against the landlord, the respondent in the revision petition. However, the appellate Court rendered a finding that the plea of sub-letting had not been proved, and therefore, it proceeded to consider only the ground relating to owners occupation. For reasons contained in the order to which I will make immediate reference, it upheld the plea of owners occupation and directed the eviction. Thus the revision. 2. In this revision, two points are raised before me by Mr. V.S. Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners: (1) That this is a case in which the firm is sought to be evicted. Therefore, order 30 of the Code of Civil Pocedure does not apply as laid down in M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand 1 to the parties who have been impleaded: and (2) Though on a consideration of the requirements of bonafides the Rent Controller was of the view that the application lacked bonafides, that aspect of the matter has not been gone into at all by the appellate authority since he chose to rely on M. Abdul Rahman v. S. Sadasivam 2. That ruling is no longer good law in view of Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar 3. Therefore, proceeding on that basis, it is argued that originally the father of the landlord refused to accept the rent till an application in this regard was made. Then again the son made an application. That was dismissed. Thereafter, partition was effected between father and son allotting this property in favour of the son. The father also having died, a portion of this property has come to vest in the son, which would be enough for his business. Therefore, these are the factors which weighed with the Rent Controller to hold that there was lack of bonafides. All these have not been adverted to by the appellate court. 3. The father also having died, a portion of this property has come to vest in the son, which would be enough for his business. Therefore, these are the factors which weighed with the Rent Controller to hold that there was lack of bonafides. All these have not been adverted to by the appellate court. 3. As far as the first point is concerned, no doubt it is true that in M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand 1 it has been categorically laid down that “firm” is no more than a compendious name for all the partners and as it cannot be sued under the Rent Control Act, because order XXX of the C.P.C. does not apply to rent control proceedings. But here the point that is raised requires to be carefully considered. This was never put forward in the main. Nor again was it urged during the trial even as a plea of law. And equally again, before the appellate court this was never urged. Therefore, I see absolutely no justification to allow this plea to defeat the rights of the landlord at this belated stage of revision except that it has been taken in the grounds. 4. As regards bonafides, I do not agree with the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that it has not been considered. As a matter of fact, the appellate court renders a finding, on a consideration of the various documents as follows: The Learned Counsel for the tenant repeatedly urged that the public authorities like the Sales Tax Officer and the Officers in Steel Authorities of India would receive any amount paid or deposited with him and issue receipts and that such receipts cannot be relied upon for concluding that the landlord is really carrying on business. It is difficult to accept this plea if the landlord is not really carrying on business, his application for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act 18 of 1960 would be opposed on the ground that he is not really carrying on any business. When this landlord has produced documents like certificate of registration and bills for having some stainless steel utensils, it is commented that these are all only documents which at the best would show that he has made preparations for carrying on business and that he is not actually carrying on business. Ex. When this landlord has produced documents like certificate of registration and bills for having some stainless steel utensils, it is commented that these are all only documents which at the best would show that he has made preparations for carrying on business and that he is not actually carrying on business. Ex. P-17 series show that he had actually sold utensils to third parties. The Learned counsel for the appellant-t enant rightly pointed out that the fact of his client actually carrying on business in a rented building cannot at all be doubted or disputed” After so rendering a finding the entire paragraph 11 of the Judgment fully devotes as to the position in which the landlord is placed and ultimately concludes: “It is apparent that when the conditions of section 10(3)(a)(iii) are satisfied, the relief of eviction sought for by the landlord cannot be denied even though it may cause inconvenience to the tenants. The finding of the Learned Rent Controller about this requirement of the landlord being not bonafide, is not correct and it cannot be allowed to stand. Therefore, we have to bear in mind not onlythe bonafides, but also the relevant inconveniencewhich may be caused by reason of this order ofeviction. Thus I find that he had applied the lawcorrectly, though he had chosen to rely on, as thelaw as it stood, M. Abdul Rahman v. S. Sadasivam 4. Thus on facts I find that this is a clearcase in which the bonafide requirement of thelandlord has been made out, as found by theappellate authority. 5. The revision petition carries no merits and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 6. Time to vacate till 20th of December, 1989. The Commissioners remuneration is fixed at Rs. 1,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent.