ORDER: The tenant, who suffered an eviction order concurrently, is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent herein is the owner of the premises bearing door No.64, Kilpauk Garden Colony, measuring an extent of 177.66 sq.ft., which is in the occupation of the revision petitioner, as tenant, where he is carrying on a business, under the name and style of Koti Stores. The rent agreed for the premises is Rs.1,000 and as pleaded in paragraph-5 of the petition, the landlord had also received a sum of Rs.25,000 as advance, contravening the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act. The landlord’s son is one A.S. Govindaraj alias Anand. It seems after the death of his wife, Mr. Govindaraj migrated from Pondicherry to Madras, winding up his business, which he was carrying on, at Pondicherry. According to the petitioner, his son desires to continue the same business, since he had the experience of 4 1/2 years. In this view, the petitioner/landlord filed R.C.O.P., for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground, that his son requires the premises, for his business establishment, which is bona fide. 3. The tenant reiterating the history of his possession, including a residential portion, which he gave up, at later point of time, opposed the application, that the petitioner is occupying a portion of the building and therefore, if at all, the petition ought to have been filed only for additional accommodation and not under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The further contention of the tenant is that, in case of his eviction, the hardship which is going to suffer, will outweigh the advantage enjoyed by the landlord. It is further contended by the tenant, that the petitioner’s son had no intention, to start any business, in his name and in fact, he is not carrying on any business also. 4. Despite the objection and creating doubt about bona fide, the Rent Controller unable to entertain any mala fide, whereas he found much bona fide in the claim of the petitioner, for personal occupation, which resulted an order of eviction on 17.4.2001, which was under challenge before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.474 of 2001. 5. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, more or less reproducing the orders of the Rent Controller, without any application of mind, confirmed the eviction order, which is under challenge in this revision. 6. 5. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, more or less reproducing the orders of the Rent Controller, without any application of mind, confirmed the eviction order, which is under challenge in this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Sampath and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. G. Nagarajan. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits, that the ingredients required under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, are not at all made out by the landlord and therefore, the eviction ordered by the Courts below, is incorrect and went to the extent of saying, that the findings are perverse. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that there is not even a plea in the petition, attracting the ingredients of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, which was not properly appreciated by the Courts below, requiring interference by this Court, more or less compulsorily. 8. While opposing the above arguments, the learned counsel for the landlord submits, that all the ingredients required for an eviction, under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, are fully made out in this case, which were properly considered by the Courts below and because of this reason, the revision deserves unacceptance, confirming the findings of the Courts below. 9. The tenancy is not in dispute. The building was let out for non-residential purpose. Admittedly, there is a residential portion, where the petitioner and his son are residing. In view of the fact, that the building, which is in the occupation of the tenant is a non-residential portion, an attempt is made to say, that the petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, is not at all maintainable. If at all, the landlord ought to have filed a petition under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. The landlord is not seeking the premises for himself, or for the occupation of his son, for residential purpose, whereas he claims for non-residential purpose. Therefore, though the building which is in the occupation of the tenant is a portion of the larger building, the requirement is for different purpose. If the landlord had claimed the demised building, for residential purpose, then only Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, will come into operation. In this case, the requirement is for the purpose of non-residential viz., to establish a business. If the landlord had claimed the demised building, for residential purpose, then only Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, will come into operation. In this case, the requirement is for the purpose of non-residential viz., to establish a business. In this view of the matter, the petition filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, is perfectly valid, whether the ground is available or not, it is the matter to be decided. 10. In order to sustain an eviction order under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, it must be shown that the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of the family is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city. It is also should be established, that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and this bonafide should satisfy the Rent Controller. In this case, the hardship, which may be caused to the tenant, by ordering eviction, need not be considered, since that is beyond the scope of the petition. Unfortunately, both the Courts below have strained themselves, unnecessarily, forgetting the provisions of law. 11. Sec.10(3)(e) proviso (1) reads: “Provided that, in the case of an application under clause (c), the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord.” This proviso is applicable in the case of an application under Clause (c) of 10(3) of the Act, where the landlord had sought eviction of a part of the building, whether residential or non-residential, as the case may be. But, it is the definite case of the petitioner/landlord, that he requires the premises only under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) and not under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Controller is not expected to satisfy himself, whether the hardship, which may be caused to the tenant, by granting an order of eviction, will outweigh the advantages to the landlord, etc. As aforementioned, unfortunately, both the Courts below have approached the case, from the tenant’s point of view, as if he had not established, that his suffering will outweigh the advantages to the landlord. Irrespective of the fact, whether the eviction will cause any hardship to the tenant, as contemplated under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, if the ingredients are available, including the bona fide, certainly the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. Irrespective of the fact, whether the eviction will cause any hardship to the tenant, as contemplated under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, if the ingredients are available, including the bona fide, certainly the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. 12. Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act contemplates, if the building is required, for the member of his family, then he must have carried on a business, which should have some significance. In our case, admittedly, the petitioner’s son is not carrying on any business, though it is said that he was doing some business, elsewhere at Pondicherry, before 1999. As seen from para.8 of the petition, after the death of his wife, petitioner’s son moved to Chennai i.e. elsewhere in 1999. Para.9 reads only the desire of the son and not his intention, to carry on business, on the basis of the experience, gained by him. The proper person, who could speak about the experience of the business, is the son of the petitioner and he has not been examined. The claim of the petitioner, that his son was carrying on a business is not admitted, as incorrectly observed by the Courts below, whereas as seen from the counter, the tenant pleaded ignorance, since he was at Madras and the petitioner’s son was at Pondicherry. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have produced some documents evidencing, that his son had owned a business at Pondicherry, till he migrated to Madras, thereby establishing the experience. The fact that the tenant had admitted that the petitioner’s son has come to Madras and living with the father, may not be a ground to conclude, that the son is carrying on a business as contemplated under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The section says, as indicated above, that it should be proved that the landlord or his son is not occupying, for purposes of business, a non-residential building in the city. As seen from the petition, I find no pleadings, even, whether the petitioner is owning or occupying any non-residential building in this city. Paragraph-10 of the petition says, that his son requires the shop portion, for his business establishment. There is nil pleading, whether the petitioner or his son is owning and occupying any other premises of their own, or whether they are occupying or not, etc. 13. Paragraph-10 of the petition says, that his son requires the shop portion, for his business establishment. There is nil pleading, whether the petitioner or his son is owning and occupying any other premises of their own, or whether they are occupying or not, etc. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on Kathan v. Scaw Manak Chand Shohaji, (2004)1 C.T.C. 668 submits, that the landlord had not even pleaded that his son is not in occupation of a non-residential building of his own and in the absence of such pleading, the petition deserves to be dismissed, as mala fide. In the case involved in the above decision, this Court considering the absence of pleadings, to the above said effect, held that such a petition is not maintainable, which ratio is well applicable to the present case. 14. The tenant/revision petitioner, in order to make out a case, that the petitioner’s son is not carrying on any business and to prove that he is employed elsewhere, examined R.W.2. R.W.2 had also produced certain documents, evidencing the payment of salary to the petitioner’s son. But, that evidence was very lightly eclipsed by the Courts below, as if he is a partisan witness. R.W.2 has nothing to do with the tenant and he is not inimical disposed with the landlord also. On the basis of the documents, as well as on the basis of the personal knowledge, he being the secretary of M/s. Spartech Ceramics India Limited, had given evidence that the petitioner’s son, by name Govindaraj is employed in his company and drawing salary from August, 1999, confirming further, still he is employed in the said company. I find no reason to discard the oral evidence of R.W.2 and the documents produced by him. Really, if the son of the petitioner is not employed, as claimed by R.W.2, he ought to have get into the box and given evidence, that he is not employed in the said company and he is not drawing the salary. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not examined his son, to prove his unemployment, thereby proving his intention, to establish a business, in the demised premises, on the basis of the previous experience. 15. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not examined his son, to prove his unemployment, thereby proving his intention, to establish a business, in the demised premises, on the basis of the previous experience. 15. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner’s son is not carrying on any business and in view of the established fact that he is employed elsewhere, on a monthly salary, I am of the considered opinion, that the building is not at all required, for the purpose of establishing a business, as contemplated under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii). As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is no bona fide also in the claim, whereas mala fide alone surfaced, which could be seen from the conduct of the parties. Originally, the entire building was in the occupation of the tenant. The back portion was used as a residential portion and the front portion is being used for non-residential purpose, under separate lease arrangement. When the landlord requested the tenant, to vacate the residential purpose, on the ground that his son is going to occupy the same, after the demise of his wife, this tenant very fairly conceded the request and vacated the premises, retaining the non-residential portion. After taking possession of the residential building, the attempt of the landlord to evict the tenant from the non-residential portion, appears to be mala fide, that too because of the fact, his son is not at all carrying on any business, which should follow the requirement is illusionary, invented for the purpose of maintaining the petition. 16. Unfortunately, both the Courts below have not properly approached the case and assessed the requirement of the landlord. In this view of the matter, the orders of the Court below are liable to be set aside, though it is a concurrent finding, it is against the materials, coming within the meaning of perverse in nature. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is accepted. In the result, the revision is allowed setting aside the order of the Courts below, dismissing the R.C.O.P.No.1638 of 1999. No costs.