Judgment : This revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.2 of 1993 on the file of the appellate authority (Sub Judge), Arni, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Arni. 2. The respondent has filed petition against the revision petitioner and another under Secs.l0(3)(iii) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) as amended (which I shall hereafter refer to as ‘the Act’), on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for own use. That was resisted by the respondent, who would contend that there was no wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that he may take the first floor premises, which is available for occupation. After enquiry the learned Rent Controller had held that there was no wilful default in payment of rent but had held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent in the trial court filed appeal in R.C.A.No.2 of 1993. After hearing both sides, the learned appellate authority had confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the trial court has come forward with this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that petitioner in the trial court is a partnership firm, represented by the partner P.T.Subramania Mudaliar and that other partners in the firm have not been impleaded as eo nominee petitioners and so the petition was not maintainable. He would further submit that the first floor portion of the building is vacant and that if the petitioner in the trial court wants this premises, which is in the ground floor, the revision petitioner can move to the first floor, which is already vacant. 4. With regard to the first submission the learned counsel, would rely upon M/s. ChhotelalPyarelal v. Shikharchand, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1570: (1984)4 S.C.C. 343 . That was a case arising out of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. 4. With regard to the first submission the learned counsel, would rely upon M/s. ChhotelalPyarelal v. Shikharchand, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1570: (1984)4 S.C.C. 343 . That was a case arising out of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. In it, the Apex Court has held as follows: “Now, there can be no doubt that since the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the H.R.C. order, no application for eviction can be maintained against a firm in the firm name. The firm is merely a compendious name for the partners constituting it and it is only by virtue of the provisions of O.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a firm can sue and be sued in its own name without the partners being impleaded eo nominee. It is therefore clear that the firm of M/s.Chhotelal Pyarelal could not be sued in the firm name by the respondent in so far as the application for eviction under the H.R.C. order was concerned. But we agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that this cannot by itself result in the dismissal of the application. It would be merely a case of misdescription of the respondents to the application and this misdescription can be corrected at any stage of the proceedings. There can be no doubt that the partners of the firm are before the court though in a wrong name”. In this case, before the Apex Court, a preliminary objection was taken even in earlier stages. But in the instant case, neither in the trial court nor in the appellate court, the revision petitioner had taken the ground that the petition itself was not maintainable. Regarding the maintainability of the petition, the objection should be taken at the first instance itself and such is not the case here. Furthermore, in M/s.Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1570: (1984)4 S.C.C. 343 , the merits of the case was not at all gone into the Rent Controller and even at the initial stage, this preliminary objection was taken right through till it was ultimately decided by the Apex Court. So the matter was remitted back to the trial court for decision on merits, after allowing the application for amendment. So the matter was remitted back to the trial court for decision on merits, after allowing the application for amendment. In the instant case, the elaborate evidence has been taken by the trial court and in a well considered judgment, the learned Rent Controller had given a clear finding that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. The appellate authority had again considered the facts and given a finding, concurring with the view of the trial court. In these circumstances, the observation of the Apex Court that it would be merely misdescription of the respondents to the application and there can be no doubt that the partners of the firm and before the court though in a wrong name apply to the facts of this case. So, assuming there is a misdescription, that by itself cannot result in the dismissal of the application. For these reasons, I am unable to accept this submission made by the learned counsel. 5. With regard to the second submission, that is a matter which cannot be gone into within the purview of this petition. The short point of dispute between the parties is whether the landlord is entitled to the demised premises for the grounds relied upon by him or not. It does not relate to other premises, which is not the subject-matter of the lease. Hence, neither this submission can be accepted. 6. In view of the above, this civil revision petition does not deserve admission and shall stand dismissed. Time is given till the end of Feburary, 1994 for vacating the premises.