Judgment : The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of requiring the petition premises by way of additional accommodation under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petition premises is situate at No.8. C.N.Krishnasamy Road, Chepauk, Madras-5. It is a non-residential building. The respondent herein is the tenant under the petitioner herein in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.125. The Rent Controller ordered eviction. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority on appeal reversed the order of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted as under: The landlord is having an engineering workshop in the rear portion of the petition premises. The tenant is in occupation of the front portion of the said premises, in which he is running a tea-stall. The landlord’s business is expanding day by day. He purchased new machineries. Further the passage leading to his portion from the road is very narrow. Hence, it is difficult for him to bring in the raw materials and the machineries. So also, it is difficult for him to take out the finished’ products through the narrow passage. In fact, the landlord purchased the petition premises for the purpose of running his workshop. Since the portion under his occupation is insufficient for running his workshop he bona fide requires the portion under the occupation of the tenant by way of additional accommodation. The relative advantage of the landlord would outweigh the tenant’s hardship. .3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted as under: The requirement of the landlord of the petition premises by way of additional accommodation is not bona fide.. Originally, the petition for eviction was filed under Sec.l0(3)(c) and Sec.l4(1)(b) of the Art. Later on, the ground relating to Sec. 14(1)(b) was withdrawn and therefore there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises. He is in occupation of the petition premises for the past 18years. In the front portion, the place occupied by the betel-nut shop is now vacant and the landlord can utilise the same for his workshop. He is in occupation of the petition premises for the past 18years. In the front portion, the place occupied by the betel-nut shop is now vacant and the landlord can utilise the same for his workshop. Further, the landlord has also purchased the adjacent building and that can also be utilised for the expansion of his business. There is an open space in between the portions occupied by the landlord and the tenant and at least that portion can be utilised by the landlord without disturbing the tenant. Hence, the hardship caused to him will outweigh the advantage of the landlord. .The landlord demanded higher rent. For all these reasons, it was submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises. 4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted as under: The portion occupied by the betel-nut shop is very small. It admea-sures only 4 feet x 9 feet and therefore it will not be sufficient for accommodating his new machineries. The space in between the portions occupied by the landlord and the tenant is a narrow stretch of land used for, climbing the staircase. Therefore, that cannot be utilised. The adjacent building purchased by him is a residential building therefore it cannot be used for nonresidential purpose. Simply because, one of the grounds stated in the petition for eviction was withdrawn that would not go to show that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide.. The landlord never asked the tenant to pay higher rent as alleged. 5. I have heard the rival submissions. 6. The fact remains that the landlord is running his Engineering Workshop in the rear portion. The tenant is occupying a small portion in the front, in which he is running a tea-stall. The landlord filed a rough sketch showing the petition premises. According to the landlord, his business is expanding day by day. He required new machineries. He wanted to accommodate these machineries. The landlord filed Exs.P-1 to P-20 in order to substantiate his case that his business is increasing and therefore he requires additional accommodation for the purpose of installing new machineries. The fact that his business is expanding was not disputed by the tenant. The portion under the occupation of the tenant admeasures 20 feet x 10 feet. The landlord filed Exs.P-1 to P-20 in order to substantiate his case that his business is increasing and therefore he requires additional accommodation for the purpose of installing new machineries. The fact that his business is expanding was not disputed by the tenant. The portion under the occupation of the tenant admeasures 20 feet x 10 feet. The sketch shows that the passage leading to the back portion is very narrow. The fact that the landlord purchased new machineries was also not disputed by the tenant. There is also no entrance to the rear portion through the betel-nut shop. Further, the portion where the betel-nut shop was conducted is very small as can be seen from the sketch. The landlord is operating various machineries like, screwing machine, cutting machine, grinding machine, threading machine, drilling machine, etc., He has got to bring in and take out the raw materials, the finished products and the machineries etc. The present passage may not be sufficient as can be seen from the sketch. Unless the passage is widened, it may not be possible for the landlord to conduct his workshop conveniently. 7. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the landlord demanded higher rent and since the tenant refused to pay the same, the landlord came forward with this petition for eviction. Therefore, it was submitted that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. It remains to be seen that according to the oral evidence of the tenant R.C.O.P.No.4590 of 1984 was filed and the fair rent was fixed at Rs.278 per month and he is also paying the same. If that is so, it is not correct on the part of the tenant to say that the landlord demanded higher rent and since the tenant refused to pay the higher rent the petition for eviction was filed. Further, the fact that a petition for fair rent was filed by itself would not go to show that the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord is not bona fide. .8. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the landlord can utilise the adjoining building for the purpose of additional accommodation. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the adjoining building is a residential one and therefore it cannot be used for non-residential purpose. .8. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the landlord can utilise the adjoining building for the purpose of additional accommodation. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the adjoining building is a residential one and therefore it cannot be used for non-residential purpose. Answer to this question can be seen from the decision of this court reported in the case of Selvaraj v. Mumtaz, A.I.R. 1987 Mad. 261, Para 11, wherein it was held that the landlord cannot be denied eviction under Sec.l0(3)(c) merely because he has come into possession subsequent to the filing of the petition under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the different demised premises which might disentitle him for possession of the premises in question under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii). Similarly, in the case of SundaraGopalv. Subramanian, (1976)2 M.L.J. 13 (N.R.C.), this court held that: “A building may be kept vacant for various reasons. It may be for the reason that it is unfit for occupation. It may be for sentimental reasons and for other causes. It is now well established in our court at any rate that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which of the houses of the landlord should be asked for his own use and occupation.” In fact, in the present case the tenant himself accepted that the adjoining building is a residential one. In the oral evidence the tenantstated that he did not make any attempt to search for alternative accommodation. He stated that he wants alternative accommodation in the same street. This kind of attitude of the tenant is discouraged in several of the decisions of this court. In the case of Mst.Bega Begum and others v. Abdul Ahmad Khan (dead) by LRs. and others, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 272: (1979)1 S.C.C. 273 , it was held that nonavailability of similar accommodation in the same locality for the same purpose is not a disadvantage against eviction. Similarly, in a matter like this, the case of P.Ramamoorthy and another v. N.R .Pattabhi Chettiar, (1979)2 M.L.J. 485 , this court adopted the same view. Further, in the case of S.Sriraman v. P.Chetty, A.I.R. 1974 Mad. 144, this Court held that if the landlord’s need was proved to be bona fide then the inconvenience of the tenant will not deprive the landlord of his bona fide right to acquire additional accommodation. Further, in the case of S.Sriraman v. P.Chetty, A.I.R. 1974 Mad. 144, this Court held that if the landlord’s need was proved to be bona fide then the inconvenience of the tenant will not deprive the landlord of his bona fide right to acquire additional accommodation. Thus a plain reading of the oral evidence tendered by the tenant would go to show that if he is evicted his disadvantage would not outweight the advantage of the landlord. 9. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the tenant was that the landlord filed the petition for eviction not only on the ground of additional accommodation but also on the ground of bona fide requiring the petition premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act. At the time of hearing the landlord withdrew the ground relating to Sec.l4(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore his requirement for additional accommodation is not bona fide. It remains to be seen that simply because the landlord withdrew one of the grounds on which eviction petition was filed, that would not by itself prove that the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord is not bona fide. The element | oibonafide has got to be proved independently in respect of each one of the ground on which the eviction petition was filed. As already pointed out that on evidence the landlord proved his bona fide requirement of the petition premises for his additional accommodation. .10. The Appellate Authority relied on the decision reported in the case of Annakili Ammal v. H.C.Hasai and Hassan, 97 L.W.116, for the purpose of holding that the tenant’s hardship will outweigh the advantage of the landlord. According to the facts appearing in that case, eviction was asked for the purpose of merely securing the better access. There was evidence on record, to show that the flour mill premises was having the access from a lane by name Inspector Subbarayalu Mudali Street. Further in that case there was no evidence on record to show that the requirement of additional accommodation was for the expansion or enlargement of the business. Therefore, this court on facts held in that case that the requirement for additional accommodation is not bona fide. Further in that case there was no evidence on record to show that the requirement of additional accommodation was for the expansion or enlargement of the business. Therefore, this court on facts held in that case that the requirement for additional accommodation is not bona fide. But on the other hand, the facts appearing in the instant case clearly show that the requirement of additional accommodation is for the purpose of expansion of the business and without widening the passage the landlord cannot enjoy the rear portion conveniently. Further, in the present case securing better access alone is not the only the ground for requiring additional accommodation. Therefore in view of the facts appearing in this case, the decision rendered in Annakili Ammal v. H.C.Hasai and Hassan, 97 L.W. 116, will not render any assistance to the tenant herein to establish that his hardship will outweigh the advantage of the landlord. 11. Again, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant contended that in ordering eviction the court should see whether the landlord deserves possession of the petition premises. As already pointed out that the tenant himself accepted in his oral evidence that the landlord required additional accommodation, but the tenant suggested that the landlord can utilise the adjacent building and the betel-nut shop. If that is so, it remains to be seen that the tenant himself accepted that the landlord requires the petition premises bona fide for his additional accommodation. Further, the tenant was also unable to establish that eviction would cause hardship to him. Therefore, the landlord deserves the possession of the petition premises. Thus, considering all these aspects, I hold that the learned Rent Controller was correct in ordering eviction. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside and the order passed by the Rent Controller is restored. 12. In the result, the revision is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs. 13. At the time of delivering the order, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant requested time to vacate the petition premises. Considering his request, the tenant is granted 6 months time from the date of this order for eviction, on condition that he should file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect within two weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the time granted for eviction shall stand vacated.