ORDER: The revision petitioner is the landlady in H.R.C.O.P. No.105 of 1990, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, and the petition was filed under Secs.10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the 1st respondent became a tenant under her in respect of the petition premises for running a business, under the name and style of ‘Saraswathi General Stores’, i.e., for non-residential purpose, on a monthly rent of Rs.500 and the 2nd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent, who is assisting him in his business. During September 1988, the respondents have caused waste and damages to the demised premises and the petitioner had taken legal proceedings. While so, the respondents without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner used the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out, by running a Sweet Stall under the name and style of ‘Archana Sweets’. The respondents have not even informed about the change of business to the petitioner. The petitioner gave a legal notice, for which, the respondents have not given any reply. The petitioner further stated that her son S.Gopalakrishnan started a business under the name and style of ‘M/s.Ponnour Agencies’, who is the sole distributor for ‘Sathe Biscuits and Chocolates’ for Pondicherry and neither the petitioner nor her son is in possession of any non-residential premises within the Pondicherry Municipal limits to carry on the business and therefore, the petitioner bona fidely requires the petition premises for her son’s business. The petitioner approached the respondents and demanded vacant possession and they have declined. Hence, the petition. 3. The respondents have filed a common counter, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner already filed two petitions in H.R.C.O.P. Nos.133 of 1988 and 5 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and causing damages to the demised premises and both the petitions were dismissed and the appeals preferred by the petitioner in C.M.A. Nos.9 and 10 of 1990, on the file of the Principle District Judge, Pondicherry were pending. During the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner gave a notice, raising a different ground for eviction, for which the respondents gave a reply on 18.9.1990. During the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner gave a notice, raising a different ground for eviction, for which the respondents gave a reply on 18.9.1990. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent alone is the tenant under the petitioner and the 1st respondent, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, is helping his father in his business. The petition premises was taken for the purpose of running a business under the name and style of ‘Saraswathi General Stores’ is not correct. But, the premises was taken for the purpose of carrying on business. There was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondents that a particular business alone should be carried on in the petition premises. The respondent also stated that he was running the business in the sale of “Coffee Powder” Centre in the demised premises and then started “Match Business”, under the name and style of ‘Shanmugam Match Works’ and some time thereafter, he started ‘Rajeswari Fire Works and then, he was running rice business and again he opened a General Merchant Shop under the name and style of ‘Saraswathi General Stores’ and now he is running a Sweet Stall, under the name and style of ‘Archana Sweets’ in the petition premises. In the absence of any specific agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner’s claim that the respondents should carry on a particular type of business is not valid. The requirement of the petition premises for the petitioner’s son is not bona fide. The petitioner’s son S.Gopalakrishnan started business under the name and style of M/s.Ponnour Agencies is not admitted. It is stated that S.Gopalakrishnan is an Advocate, carrying on his profession as an Advocate and therefore, he cannot carry on any business unless he suspends his practice. Having lost the earlier proceedings for eviction, the petitioner has filed the present petition with untenable allegations. 4. One Subburaman, Power Agent of the Petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. The 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. 5. The Rent Controller, after having considered the case of the petitioner and the respondents, dismissed the petition. As against the same, the landlady preferred an appeal in M.A. No.20 of 1995 and the same also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady has preferred this civil revision petition. 5. The Rent Controller, after having considered the case of the petitioner and the respondents, dismissed the petition. As against the same, the landlady preferred an appeal in M.A. No.20 of 1995 and the same also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady has preferred this civil revision petition. Heard the learned advocate for the revision petitioner and the respondents. 6. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the requirement of the petition premises by the petitioner for her son’s business, as he had taken an agency under the name and style of M/s.Ponnour Agencies for the sale of biscuits and chocolates. It is submitted that under Ex.A-2, dated 6.4.1990, the petitioner’s son S.Gopalakrishnan obtained licence from Pondicherry Municipality for running a biscuit business. Licence was obtained by S.Gopalakrishnan, from Pondicherry Municipality for use of the premises, bearing door No.44, Calve Subraya Chettiar Street, Pondicherry for selling of bakery articles under the name and style of M/s.Ponnour Agencies. Ex.A-3 (Series) is the invoices, dated from 30.4.1990 to 13.8.1990, placing orders by M/s.Ponnour Agencies to Shri Kuber’s Enterprises, C&F Agents for ‘Sathe Biscuit and Chocolate Company Ltd. To run the same at the premises, bearing door No.44, Calve Subraya Chettiar Street, Pondicherry. Ex.A-4 (series), dated from 19.9.1990 to 20.12.1990 is the order placed by M/s.Ponnour Agencies to ‘Sathe Biscuits and Chocolates Company’ for purchase of biscuits and chocolates. Ex.A5 is the Certificate of Registration issued under ‘Form B’ by the Commercial Tax Officer to S.Gopalakrishnan for running wholesale and retail distribution of biscuits and chocolates at No.44, Calve Subraya Chettiar Street, Pondicherry. Relying upon these documents, the petitioner is trying contend that the petition premises is badly required for her son to carry on business. 7. On going through Exs.A-2 and A-5, it is made out that the petitioner’s son has obtained licence to carry on business at door No.44, Calve Subraya Chettiar Street, Pondicherry. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said premises does not belong either to the petitioner or to her son. Nowhere in the petition, it is stated that the premises bearing door No.44, Calve Subraya Chettiar Street, Pondicherry is a rented premises, where the petitioner’s son is carrying on business. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said premises does not belong either to the petitioner or to her son. Nowhere in the petition, it is stated that the premises bearing door No.44, Calve Subraya Chettiar Street, Pondicherry is a rented premises, where the petitioner’s son is carrying on business. What all it has been stated in para 4 of the petition is that the petitioner’s son started a business under the name and style of M/s.Ponnour Agencies and neither the petitioner nor her son is in possession of any non-residential premises within the Pondicherry limits. But, it is not stated that the premises, where the petitioner’s son has been carrying on the business is a rented premises and in the absence of the same, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in possession of any other non-residential building within Pondicherry limits and that therefore, petitioner’s claim is bona fide. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s son is practising as an Advocate and therefore, it is contended on behalf of the respondent/tenant that unless he suspends practice, he cannot carry on business. It is also pointed out that P.W.1 himself had admitted in evidence that the petitioner’s son has not obtained any orders from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for suspending his practice or to carry on business other than the legal profession and in the absence of the same, the petitioner’s son, who is practising as an Advocate, cannot carry on the business. It is true that a practising Advocate cannot carry on business unless he is permitted by the Bar Council or he suspends his practise. Of course, that is the matter between the Bar Council and the concerned Advocate and it may not be proper for the respondent to resist the claim of the petitioner on that ground. But, however, we have already seen that the petitioner has not made out a case that she requires the petition premises bona fidely and therefore, the requirement of the petitioner cannot be complied with. 9. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that the respondent having taken the premises for running ‘Saraswathi General Stores’ , changed the business without the consent and knowledge of the landlady to ‘Sweet Stall’ and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. 10. 9. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that the respondent having taken the premises for running ‘Saraswathi General Stores’ , changed the business without the consent and knowledge of the landlady to ‘Sweet Stall’ and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. 10. The petitioner relied upon certain rulings to support his case. 11. In K.V.Radhakrishna Chettiar v. E.K.M.Mohamad Abdul Ghani and others, 1973 T.L.N.J. 70, the tenant contended that even from the beginning, he has been using the premises for the purpose of selling sports goods and general merchandise and the same cannot be accepted in the face of the evidence that the premises was let out for the specific purpose of running a photo studio and in the said context, the change of business without the consent of the landlord was held to be using the building for the purpose other than for which it was let out. 12. In K.Venkataramani v. S. Aravamuthan and others, (1981)1 M.L.J. 516 , the landlord raised several grounds to secure the order of eviction against the tenant and also succeeded in establishing one of such grounds and failed in other grounds and secured ultimately an order in his favour and nevertheless he is a person ‘aggrieved’ with reference to those findings against him, if the ultimate decision of the authorities is challenged by the opposite party. In the said circumstances, it was held that though the landlord succeeded in one ground, he was an aggrieved party in respect of other grounds and he is entitled to appeal and the same cannot be questioned by the tenant by way of revision. 13. In the case of K.Panchavarnamal (died) and six others v. E.Saraswathiammal and three others, (1996)2 M.L.J. 252 : (1996)1 L.W. 714 , the petition premises was let out for Pawn broker’s business and the tenant has converted as a Coffee Bar and then using it as a godown. The tenant took a plea that there is acquiescence of the business carried on by the tenant and the same cannot be questioned by the landlord. But, however, there are documents i.e., receipts, in which, the purpose for which the premises was let out was shown and in those circumstances, the Court accepted the case of the landlord that the petition premises was put into use for different user and ordered eviction. 14. But, however, there are documents i.e., receipts, in which, the purpose for which the premises was let out was shown and in those circumstances, the Court accepted the case of the landlord that the petition premises was put into use for different user and ordered eviction. 14. S.Mohan Lal v. R.Kondiah, (1979)2 S.C.C. 616 is the case, where the landlord is carrying on legal profession and required the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andra Pradesh Act and the rent control appellate authority ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement by the landlord. But, on revision, the High Court negatived the landlord’s contention that the practice of legal profession was not a business within the meaning of that section. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held, “There is no reason why a landlord who is a member of the legal profession and who requires the premises for carrying on the practice of his profession should be wholly debarred from obtaining possession of the premises. The expression ‘business’ occurring in Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) is used in a wide sense so as to include the practice of the profession of an advocate.” This case is also not applicable to the case on hand for the simple reason that the landlord has not sought eviction of the petition premises for carrying on the legal profession of her son, but, the landlady requires the premises to carry on business of her son and the bona fide of the same was not established. 15. Jagdish Lal v. Parmanand, (2000)5 S.C.C. 44 , deals with ‘wrongful user’ and ‘change of user’. In that case, the premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of running a maniyari business (general merchant, ready made and cloth merchant) and later switching to restaurant and cold drinks business. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of inter alia, change of user. During the pendency of the Court proceedings before the rent controller, the tenant reverted to original business. The rent controller allowed the eviction petition, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. It was held that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s revision, as ends of justice would be better served if the appellant is allowed to retain the premises at a higher rent. The rent controller allowed the eviction petition, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. It was held that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s revision, as ends of justice would be better served if the appellant is allowed to retain the premises at a higher rent. It was also held that “where a new business is linked or allied or ancillary to the original business, permitted under the lease, held switching to such new business would not amount to change of user.” 16. In our case, the tenant, in the counter filed by him, made it very clear that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent to carry on any particular type of business. The tenant started business in the sale of Coffee Powder, then started “Match Business”, under the name and style of ‘Shanmugam Match Works’ and then ‘Rajeswari Fire Works and thereafter, he was running rice business and then a General Merchant Shop and on the date of filing of the petition, he was running a Sweet Stall, under the name and style of ‘Archana Sweets’ in the petition premises. It is contended on behalf of the respondent/tenant that the petition premises was taken for running the business and he has been doing all these businesses and the same was not questioned by the landlady also. It is therefore argued that the petitioner/landlady is acquiesced of the fact that the respondent/tenant has been changing the business. It is further submitted that in the absence of any specific agreement between the parties to carry on a particular trade or business, it is open to the respondent to carry on any business of his choice, which is not prohibited under law. As it could be seen that the change of business now and then by the respondent/tenant was not at all objected to by the petitioner and in the absence of any specific agreement also, we arc unable to accept the case of the petitioner that the tenant is using the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out. It is therefore evident that the tenant is at liberty to carry on any business of his own, which is not prohibited under any law. It is therefore evident that the tenant is at liberty to carry on any business of his own, which is not prohibited under any law. As the petition premises was taken for non-residential business and the same is not prohibited under any law and as the petitioner/landlady also has miserably failed to establish that the petition premises was given to carry on any particular type of business and the same was breached by the tenant, I am not in a position to accept the case of the petitioner that the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground that he is carrying on some other business in the petition premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to fall to the ground and the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of change of business in the petition premises. 17. In view of the discussions and observations made above. I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below, which warrants interference by this Court. 18. In the result, the civil revision petilion is dismissed. No costs.