Judgment :- 1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant in the rent control proceedings. The first respondent landlord who is now no more filed an application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) seeking eviction of the petitioner herein from the suit premises. That application was resisted inter alias that in as much as the landlord was in possession of a portion of the building, an application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act will not lie and if at all, only an application under S. 10(3)(c)(iii) of the Act alone will lie. Both the Authorities below based on the law then holding the field held that the application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was maintainable and on merits, found that the requirement of the building for own occupation was Bona fide and consequently, ordered eviction. 2. Now, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty 1 disapproving a decision of this Court reported in Thintpathy v. Kanta Rao 2 has taken the view that if the landlord is in occupation of the portion of the building, then only an application under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act will be the proper remedy for getting eviction of any tenant in the occupation of other portion. On that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding of the Authorities below that the application was maintainable cannot be sustained. 3. Mr. Kailasam, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent submitted that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be made down applicable to the facts of this case in view of the evidence available in the case. According to the learned counsel, it is in the evidence both of the petitioner and of the first respondent that the landlord was residing at Dharmapuri and used to come to the suit premises occasionally and, therefore, it cannot be considered that the landlord was residing in a portion of the premises. According to the learned counsel, it is in the evidence both of the petitioner and of the first respondent that the landlord was residing at Dharmapuri and used to come to the suit premises occasionally and, therefore, it cannot be considered that the landlord was residing in a portion of the premises. Alternatively, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application filed though under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in the light of the objections taken by the petitioner tenant, it can be treated as one under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act and, if necessary, a finding can be called for from the learned Rent Controller on the requirements of S. 10(3)(c) of the Act. In reply, Mr. Venkatachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of this Court reported in Kuppa Sah v. Rajaram Sah 3 even if a room is occupied by the landlord kept under lock and key, it must be deemed that the landlord is in occupation of a portion of the building. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of this case is not correct. On the second contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, it is submitted in reply that the entire pleadings have to be changed and mere calling for a finding will not serve the purpose. 4. On the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be pressed into service in view of the peculiar facts of this case, viz., that the landlord was residing at Dharmapuri, but, occasionally used to come and occupy the room in the suit premises, I am unable to agree with him, particularly, in the light of the decision in Kuppa Sab v. Rajaram Sah 3 . On the alternative contention also, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the pleadings already taken, mere calling for a finding will not serve the purpose. On the facts, it is not in dispute that the landlord was in occupation of a portion of the suit premises, and, therefore, the contention that the application if at all will have to be only under S. 10 (3)(c) of the Act cannot be disputed. On the facts, it is not in dispute that the landlord was in occupation of a portion of the suit premises, and, therefore, the contention that the application if at all will have to be only under S. 10 (3)(c) of the Act cannot be disputed. In the circumstances, the application filed under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is not maintainable. On that ground, the orders of the Authorities below are set aside, and the eviction petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.