Judgment : The landlady is the petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. The landlady filed three petitions for eviction against three tenants on the ground of owner’s occupation under Sec.10(3 )(a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The petition- premises is situate at No.24, Amman Koil Street, Park Town, Madras-3. The landlady purchased the petition-premises. The landlady is residing in Ekambarakuppam in Andhra Pradesh. According to the landlady she has no premises of her own in the City of Madras. She is carrying on business in Madras along with other partners. She is having two sons and one daughter. One son studied upto B.Com. The other son studied upto Plus II. The daughter is studying in VIII Standard. She wants to give better education to her children at Madras. She is also not in sound health. In order to get better treatment, she wants to come and live in her house in Madras City. For all these reasons, she required the petition- premises bona fide under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the requirement of the landlady under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not bona fide. It was submitted that she is having several premises of her own in the City of Madras. She can also give education in the place, where she is now residing. She is only a partner in a business at Madras and the other partners can look after that business. The landlady has got possession of one room in the upstairs and one room in the ground floor. Therefore, the petitions ought to have been filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act and not under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. After one of the tenants Lakshmana Sa vacated, that portion was let out to some other tenant. Therefore, according to the tenants that the petitions filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are not maintainable. 3. The landlady examined herself as P.W.1. Singara Mudaliar was examined as P.W.2. Manilal Champalal Sowcar and Sundar were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3. The landlady filed 52 documents. The tenants filed 10 documents. Therefore, according to the tenants that the petitions filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are not maintainable. 3. The landlady examined herself as P.W.1. Singara Mudaliar was examined as P.W.2. Manilal Champalal Sowcar and Sundar were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3. The landlady filed 52 documents. The tenants filed 10 documents. Considering the facts arising in these cases, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlady in requiring the petition- premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the petitions for eviction were dismissed. 4. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority appraising the facts arising in these cases, confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. It is against this order, the present Revisions have been preferred by the landlady. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as under: The landlady is residing in a village near the border of Andhra Pradesh State. She purchased the petition- premises. There were two tenants in the upstairs portion and in the ground floor portion there were two tenants. The landlady is in occupation of the verandah in the upstairs, and a small room in the ground floor. In the ground floor room there were electric meters and water pump. Therefore, it is not fit for occupation. The landlady is having two sons and one daughter. She wants to give them better education in Tamil in Madras City. She is also carrying on a business as a partner in the Madras City. She is a sick person and therefore, she required medical treatment. For all these reasons, she required the petition- premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. It was, therefore, pleaded that the landlady required the petition-premises bona fide for her own use and occupation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ tenants submitted as under: The landlady can give better education to her children in the place where she is now residing. Her business is being looked after by the other partners. Therefore, her presence is not necessary for the purpose of business. A portion fell vacant in the petition-premises. That was let out to another tenant. The landlady is in possession of one room in the upstairs and one room in the ground floor. Therefore, the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the petition-premises. Therefore, her presence is not necessary for the purpose of business. A portion fell vacant in the petition-premises. That was let out to another tenant. The landlady is in possession of one room in the upstairs and one room in the ground floor. Therefore, the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the petition-premises. During the pendency of these revisions, another portion fell vacant and the said portion is now under the occupation of the landlady. In such circumstances, the petitions for eviction ought to have been filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. In the room in the upstairs portion, the landlady is keeping her belongings according to her own evidence tendered before the Rent Controller. Insofar as the room in the ground floor is concerned, that is also under the occupation of the landlady. In the said room she was keeping the electric meters and water pump and thereby using the said room for her own purpose. User of a portion of the building is considered to be occupying the same. Hence, it was submitted that the authorities below were correct in dismissing the petitions filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 7. I have heard the rival submissions. The landlady filed the petitions for eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The landlady is residing in a village near Andhra Pradesh. According to her, she is having two sons and one daughter and she wanted to give them better education in Madras City. The authorities below pointed out that in the modem times the education can be given anywhere in this country and it is not necessary that the education should be given only at Madras City. The landlady submitted that she is having a business in Madras City, and therefore, she has to come to the City of ten. The tenants pointed out that she is a partner to the business and the business is being looked after by the other partners. Therefore, her presence is not always necessary for looking after the business. The landlady said that she is a sick person and she required medical attendance and therefore, she is coming to Madras often. The authorities below pointed out that medical facilities can get anywhere and there is no evidence on record to show as to what kind of ailment the landlady was suffering. The landlady said that she is a sick person and she required medical attendance and therefore, she is coming to Madras often. The authorities below pointed out that medical facilities can get anywhere and there is no evidence on record to show as to what kind of ailment the landlady was suffering. One Lakshmana Sa was occupying a portion in the ground floor, consisting of a hall, three rooms, a bath room and an open space with another hall. Lakshmana Sa was using it for residential purpose. The said Lakshmana Sa surrendered that portion to the landlady. The landlady is now in occupation of that residential portion. But according to the landlady, that portion was let out to one A.Venkatasami Mudaliar and R.Y.Singara Mudaliar and Company and they are in occupation of the said portion. The landlady is keeping a room in the ground floor and she is in occupation of the same, wherein the electric meter and the telephone cable joints have been installed. The said room is admeasuring 7 feet to 10 to 12 feet. Therefore, the landlady is using the said room in the ground floor for her own purpose. In the oral evidence adduced by her, she has stated that she is in possession of one room in the upstairs, wherein she was keeping her belongings. It was also brought to the notice of the court that during the pendency of these revisions, the tenant in C.R.P.No.1653 of 1986 vacated and surrendered his portion to the landlady. The said portion consisting of two rooms, open space and a toilet. The landlady is in occupation of this portion. This portion is kept under lock and key of the landlady. Therefore, it remains to be seen that one room in the upstairs, one room in the down stair and the portion vacated by the tenant during the pendency of these revisions are now in the occupation of the landlady. If the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the petition- premises, then if she requires possession of other portions, which are under occupation of the tenants, petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not maintainable. The landlady has got to file the petition under Sec.10(3) (c) of the Act. If the petition is filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, the hardship to the tenant must be pleaded and proved. The landlady has got to file the petition under Sec.10(3) (c) of the Act. If the petition is filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, the hardship to the tenant must be pleaded and proved. But in the present petitions, there is no averment with regard to the hardship that may be caused to the tenants. No evidence was also produced on this aspect. Therefore, the petitions filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are not maintainable according to the authorities below. 8. In Babu Singh Chauhan v. Smt.Rajkumari Jain, (1982)1 S.C.C. 520 , while considering Sec.17(2)of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 held as under: ‘‘ ‘occupation’ of the part premises by a landlord within the meaning of Sec.17(2) may assume various forms. A landlord may be serving outside while retaining his possession over a property or a part of the property by either leaving it in charge of a servant or by putting his household effects or things locked up in the premises, and making visits there off and on. Such an occupation also would be full and complete possession in the eye of law. Therefore, in the present case the mere fact that the landlady did not actually reside in the premises which were locked and contained her household effects, it cannot be said that she was not in possession of the premises so as to make Sec.17 (2) inapplicable." 9. Admittedly, the landlady is having a room in the upstair portion, where she was keeping her vessels. In the downstair portion in another room, she installed electric meters and telephone cable joints. This would go to show that the landlady is using both these rooms for her purpose. User of a portion in the premises would amount to occupying the same according to the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore, if the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the petition- premises, necessarily the petitions should be filed only under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act. Hence, the petitions filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are not maintainable even according to the facts arising in these cases. The learned counsel appearing for the landlady submitted that if two remedies are available, the landlady can choose one of the remedies, which is advantageous to her. But in the present case, it remains to be seen that Sec.10(3)(c) and Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are two different provisions. The learned counsel appearing for the landlady submitted that if two remedies are available, the landlady can choose one of the remedies, which is advantageous to her. But in the present case, it remains to be seen that Sec.10(3)(c) and Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are two different provisions. If a petition is liable to be filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, it cannot be filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and vice versa. Thus, the authorities below both on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlady and on the question of maintainability of the petitions correctly held that the landlady is not entitled to get the relief asked for. The question of bona fide is stated to be a question of fact or a mixed question of fact ane law. The authorities below concurrently came to the conclusion that the landlady failed to establish her bona fide in requiring the petition-premises under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Act. If the findings given by the authorities below are concurrent on the question of bona fide, if is not open to this revisional court to interfere with such findings. In view of the foregoing discussions, the order of the authorities below in dismissing the petitions filed under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Act is in order. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.