Judgment : The tenants are the petitioners herein. They are in occupation of two shops belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.160 for each shop. The respondent herein is a tenant in a rented premises under one Muthu at No.22, Deenadayalan Street, T.Nagar, Madras. The respondent is doing his business in the said rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. Hence he required the shops under the occupation of the tenants for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein sent a notice dated 6. 1987 to the petitioners herein calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession. In spite of the said notice, they have not handed over possession. Hence according to the respondent herein he established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. 2. In the counter the tenants stated as under: It is not correct to state that the landlord required the petition premises for his own use and occupation. There is no evidence on record to show that the requirement of the landlord of the petition premises is bona fide. The landlord is in the habit of increasing the rent periodically. The rent which was at Rs.95 in the beginning was later on raised to Rs.160 per month. This would go to show that the landlord was increasing the rent periodically. Before filing this petition for eviction two of the shops fell vacant but the landlord did not occupy the same. The landlord filed this petition with an object of getting more rent. The tenans are in occupation of the petition premises from the year 1976 and they have expanded their business by establishing their goodwill. Since there are two shops with two separate rental agreements, one petition filed by the landlord against both the tenants is not maintainable. It was, therefore, pleaded that the landlord failed to establish his bona fide under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. 3. The landlord examined himself as P.W.1. One Rajabathar was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd respondent examined himself as R.W.2. The landlord filed 11 documents and the tenant filed 8 documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. One Rajabathar was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd respondent examined himself as R.W.2. The landlord filed 11 documents and the tenant filed 8 documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, appraising the facts arising in this case, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Sec.l0(3) (a)(iii) of the Act. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenants. 4. The tenants are father and son and they are in occupation of two shops. According to them there are two rental agreements for two shops and therefore one petition filed by the landlord against two tenants is not maintainable. According to the landlord both the shops are occupied by the father and son and since he required both the shops for the purpose of accommodating his business which he is carrying on in a rented premises one petition filed against both the tenants is maintainable. In the case of R. Venkatesachari v. A, Judge, Court of Small Causes, (1949)2 M.L.J. 784 , while considering the provisions of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XV of 1948, a Division Bench of this Court held as under: “Though the definition of a building in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, includes a portion of the building it does not mean that the owner of a house portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. What is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation.” So also in Kandasamy v. Hajee K.S.Mohammed Mohideen Rowther, (1982)1 M.L.J. 170, this Court while considering the provisions of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii)of the Act, held that ‘When there is a single tenancy agreement even if the premises consists of more than one portion, a rent control application in respect of the entire premises can be maintained. “ Learned counsel for the landlord relied upon a decision in the case of T.N. Unnamalai Achi v. Swaminatha Pathar, 93 L. W. 404, wherein while considering the provisions of Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, this Court held that,” when the premises formed different units and which will come within the meaning “Building” under Sec.2(ii) of the Act, the purpose which they serve would be different, the clubbing of these premises together for the purpose of obtaining the relief under the provisions of the Act will cause prejudice to the tenant. In this view, a single petition, which the landlord resorted to for evicting a tenant from the three premises cannot be countenanced. In that decision different kinds of premises were clubbed together. Hence, this decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case father and son occupied two shops. They are not two different units and the landlord required the entire premises. Hence on single petition is competent. .5. According to the landlord, he required the petition premises for the purpose of accommodating his own business, which he is carrying on in a rented premises at No.52, Deenadayalan Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17. The landlord is conducting a mechanic shop in the rented premises. According to the landlord the owner of the premises at Deenadayalan Street, is threatening to evict him. The petition premises, comprised of two shops and they are occupied by the father and the son. According to the tenants the landlord is not doing motor Mechanic business and he is not carrying on his business anywhere. In order to prove that the landlord is carrying on his motor mechanic business Ex.R-5 was filed. Ex.R-5 is a certificate given by Periyar E.V.R. This certificate was published in a souvenier released on the eve of Periyar’s birthday. According to the tenants they are not denying the certificate given by Periyar E. V.R. But according to the tenants this certificate was given long back and at present there is no evidence on record to show that the landlord is carrying on his motor mechanic business. The landlord examined P.W.2, who deposed that the landlord is working under him as a mechanic. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he is repairing the doors of motor-cars. The landlord examined P.W.2, who deposed that the landlord is working under him as a mechanic. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he is repairing the doors of motor-cars. He further stated that since the landlord is not having any other premises of his own, he is doing his business in repairing the doors of the cars in the place belonging to P.W.2. According to the authorities below, the evidence given by P.W.2 is acceptable and there is no evidence on the side of the tenants to disprove the evidence given by P.W.2. Hence, it was submitted that the landlord is carrying on his business in motor mechanic trade. According to the tenants the landlord is conducting driving school. But according to the landlord that school was conducted by his wife. Ex.P-8 was filed, which is an affidavit, showing that the said school is being conducted by the wife of the landlord. According to the tenants the landlord is conducting a driving school and he is not conducting his business in motor mechanic trade. The landlord filed Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11. According to these documents, the driving school is being conducted by the son of the landlord and not by the landlord himself. It also shows that the landlord purchased a car and changed the registration of the same in the name of his son. According to the tenants, the car was transferred by the landlord in the name of his son only after the filing of the present petition. According to the landlord his son cannot run the driving school without a car and therefore he tranferred the car in the name of his son. The R.T.O. certificate for conducting the driving school is in the name of the son of the landlord. In the reply notices sent by the tenant, it is not stated that the landlord is not carrying on his business in motor mechanic trade. The tenants are conducting grocery shop in the petition premises. Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 would go to show that they are conducting their shop in selling rice and grocery. .6. According to the tenants one shop which has got access on both the sides where cattle fodder was being sold fell vacant and the shop which is next to it also fell vacant. But the landlord did not occupy both the shops. .6. According to the tenants one shop which has got access on both the sides where cattle fodder was being sold fell vacant and the shop which is next to it also fell vacant. But the landlord did not occupy both the shops. According to the landlord he required the petition premises for the purpose of doing his motor mechanic business. The shop in which the cattle fodder was sold contains electric meter and seven main switches. Further it is a small place and in the said portion conducting motor mechanic business is dangerous. The shop which is next to the shop in which the cattle fodder was sold is just in front of the residential portion. According to the landlord after the shop fell vacant it was not let out to anybody and the landlord is residing in the said shop. Even according to the tenants the landlord has not let out this portion for a long time to anybody. In front of the shops occupied by the tenant, there is open space. According to the landlord the vacant portion in front of the shops under the occupation of the tenant would be more useful for him to park the cars which would be entrusted to him for carrying 7. Thus on facts the landlord established that he is carrying on his business in repairing the motor vehicles and he is doing such business in a rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. Apart from these two factors the landlord has also established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(e) of the Act. The ingredients for obtaining possession under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act are stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hamedia Hardware v. Mohanlal Sowcar, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1060: (1988)1 J.T. 664 . Both the authorities below concurrently came to the conclusion that on facts the landlord established that he deserves to be put in possession of the petition premises. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii)of the Act is in order. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Time for eviction two months.