ORDER Somasundaram, J. 1. The petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 1312 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P. 2. The petitioner filed the above R.C.O.P. for eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the, petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing door No. 30, Pethu Naicken Street, Madras and the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of a portion in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 350. The petitioner is living in the upstairs of the petition premises with his family consisting of his wife, three sons and two daughters. The two sons of the petitioner after completing their studies, are now unemployed. The petitioner was originally carrying on the coffee business in the downstairs portion in the petition premises. But, due to his illness the petitioner was prevented from carrying on the said business and he was forced to stop his business activities. The petitioner, as he has improved his health, intends to restart his business in coffee with the help of his sons. Further the petitioner's family consists of grown-up people and the petitioner finds it quite inadequate and inconvenient to reside in the portion now available to them. The petitioner wants to reside in a portion occupied by the respondent and to carry on the business in the remaining portion in the occupation of the respondent and thus using it both for residential and non-residential purposes. The petitioner bona fide requires the demised portion for his additional accommodation. 3. The respondent resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: The petition for eviction has been filed because of the respondent filing a suit against the petitioner in O.S. No. 82 of 1984 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and also a Rent Control petition filed by the respondent against the petition for the restoration of amenities. The petitioner is not carrying on any business on the date of the application and as such he is not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. The petitioner is already occupying a portion in the second floor of the petition premises consisting of two rooms, one big hall, one kitchen and verandah. He is also occupying one room in the third floor of the petition premises. Just prior to the filing of the petition for eviction the petitioner evicted a tenant who was occupying the second floor portion in the petition premises and he occupied the second floor portion after moving out from the first floor. The first floor portion, which he had shifted later on, was let out to another tenant and, therefore, the petitioners' requirement for additional accommodation for residential purposes, is not bona fide. 4. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, found that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portion for additional accommodation for his residence and for his business is not bona fide and consequently dismissed the petition for eviction. As against the judgment of the Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal, R.C.A. No. 436 of 1986 before the Appellate Authority/9th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent, Controller and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition. 5. The two points which arise for consideration in this civil revision petition are: 1. Whether the petitioner's requirement of the demised portion for additional accommodation for residential purpose is bona fide? 2. Whether the petitioner's requirement of the demised portion for additional accommodation for his business is bona fide? 6. Point No. 1 : The evidence in this case discloses that the petitioner was living in the first floor portion and the second floor portion was let out to a tenant and that in 1982 when the tenant vacated the second floor portion, the petitioner moved to the second floor portion and let out the first floor portion to another tenant. If the requirement of the petitioner for additional accommodation for residential purpose is bona fide, the petitioner could have occupied the first floor portion when it fell vacant just prior to the filing of the petition for eviction. If the requirement of the petitioner for additional accommodation for residential purpose is bona fide, the petitioner could have occupied the first floor portion when it fell vacant just prior to the filing of the petition for eviction. He did not occupy the first floor portion and let out the same to another tenant. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for not occupying the first floor portion when it fell vacant in 1982. The evidence also discloses that the petitioner, who is occupying the second floor is also in occupation of one room in the third floor. In this civil revision petition the respondent has filed an affidavit. In para 3 of the said affidavit the respondent has stated as follows: The said Pannalal also subsequently vacated during the pendency of the eviction proceedings and the landlord even though according to him he required a portion in the said premises for the additional accommodation let out the first floor portion to one Bushan Malhotra. The said Bushan Malhotra also recently vacated the portion and the landlord also let out the portion once again to one Berulal Sharma. All these things have happened during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. If at all the landlord required the portion under my occupation, he would have definitely occupied the portion which fell vacant during the period of this eviction proceedings. The petitioner also filed an affidavit in this civil revision petition in reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent. In his affidavit the petitioner admits that the first floor had fallen vacant and it has been let out to other tenants during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. However, in his affidavit the petitioner has come forward with a new case that he wants to occupy the ground floor because he has become old and he is unable to climb even to the first floor. But, this is a new case put forth by the petitioner for the first time in his reply affidavit filed in the civil revision petition and this is not the case put forward in the original petition for eviction filed before the Rent Controller. But, this is a new case put forth by the petitioner for the first time in his reply affidavit filed in the civil revision petition and this is not the case put forward in the original petition for eviction filed before the Rent Controller. On the evidence available on record in this case and in view of the subsequent changed circumstances as disclosed in the affidavits filed by both the parties in this civil revision petition, it has to be held that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portion for additional accommodation for residential purpose is not bona fide. 7. Point No. 2 : The admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was originally carrying on the coffee business in the downstairs portion in the petition mentioned premises. But, due to his illness the petitioner was forced to stop his business. The petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he stopped his business activities from 1982 and from 1982 he is not doing any business. Section 10(3)(c) of the Act provides that a landlord occupying only a part of a building may apply for an order directing the tenant to put any portion of the remaining part of the building in the possession of the landlord if he requires additional accommodation for the purpose of business, which the landlord is carrying on. The landlord can ask for additional accommodation for the purpose of his business only if he is carrying on the business on the date on which he filed the petition for eviction. Admittedly in this case, the petitioner was not carrying on any business either on the date of the petition or on the date of his giving evidence. The question of the petitioner requiring the demised portion for additional accommodation for the purpose of his business does not arise when the petitioner is not carrying on any business. 8. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority refused to grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he made preparations to start the business and the reasoning of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is not correct. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority refused to grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he made preparations to start the business and the reasoning of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is not correct. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Ramamurthy v. Paramananthachary (1989) 1 L.W. 102 and Sonmull v. Dhanalakshmi (1987) 1 M.L.J. 465 . The above decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts. in the case reported in Ramamurthy v. Paramananthachary (1989) 1 L.W. 102 , on facts it was found that the additional accommodation is required for the purpose of manufacturing and repairing the shoes as adjacent to the business of running a shoe mart which was already in existence and that the activity of manufacturing and repairing shoes has to be undertaken by the landlord as part of the business which he is already conducting. In the case reported in Sonmull v. Dhanalakshmi (1987) 1 M.L.J. 465 , also, on facts it was found that the landlord in that case was actually carrying on a business on the date of the application for eviction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decisions reported in Chelliah Pandithan v. Anthoniammal 98 L.W. 666 and Mari Ammal v. Kandaswamy 1977 T.L.N.J. 499. The principles laid down in the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case because the above decisions were rendered with reference to applications for eviction filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. As the petitioner was admittedly not carrying on any business, the petitioner is not entitled to any order of eviction on the ground of requirement for additional accommodation for the purpose of his business and in such circumstances, the petitioner's requirement for additional accommodation for the purpose of his business cannot be considered as bona fide. Again, the evidence in this case also discloses that the relationship between the parties is not cordial and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent on account of the amounts borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent. The evidence further discloses that the respondent has filed a Rent Control Original petition against the petitioner before the Rent Controller for restoration of the amenities. The evidence further discloses that the respondent has filed a Rent Control Original petition against the petitioner before the Rent Controller for restoration of the amenities. On the basis of the evidence available on record both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rightly held that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portion for additional accommodation for his business purpose as well as for residential purpose is not bona fide. There is no infirmity in the findings of the authorities below. There are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.