Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2002 and made in R.C.A.No.16 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Udhagamandalam, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 25.7.2000 passed in R.C.O.P.No.38 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Udhagamandalam.) The Revision Petitioners herein are the unsuccessful tenants before the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. This Revision Petition is directed against the order of eviction, dated 25.7.2000, passed in R.C.O.P.No.38/1999, on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Uthagamandalam, filed on the ground of own use and occupation, by the respondents/landlords herein, as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Uthagamandalam, in R.C.A.No.16/2000, as per the judgment dated 19.7.2002. 2. The 1st respondent herein, the mother and widow of C.Ramesh Chettiar, and the 2nd respondent herein, the son of C.Ramesh Chettiar, filed the Rent Control Original Petition, R.C.O.P.No.38/1999 against the Revision Petitioners/tenants for eviction from the petition premises, stating that the petition premises bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund is owned by them, and the respondents herein are brothers, and the Revision Petitioners require the petition premises bona fide for the own use and occupation of the the 2nd respondent herein, being the son of the 1st respondent. At the time of filing the Rent Control Original Petition, the Respondents/landlords have been residing in the premises adjacent to the premises, bearing Door NO.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund. But, after the marriage of the 2nd respondent herein, the 2nd respondent set up separate residence for himself and requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation, from the Revision/Petitioners/tenants, namely, the rented building. The 1st Revision Petitioner herein, the tenant has constructed his own house at Green Field, Ootacamund and shifted his family to the said newly constructed house. Though the 1st Revision Petitioner herein promised to vacate the petition premises, he placed the 2nd Revision Petitioner herein, in possession of the petition premises, thereby transferred his rights under the lease to the 2nd Revision Petitioner herein. But, the premise in question was let out to the 1st Revision Petitioner herein, on a monthly rent of Rs.350/-, the tenancy being according to English calendar month. 3. But, the premise in question was let out to the 1st Revision Petitioner herein, on a monthly rent of Rs.350/-, the tenancy being according to English calendar month. 3. The Rent Control Original Petition was contested by the Revision Petitioners/tenants herein stating that the second Revision Petitioner herein was allotted the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. It is also stated that the Revision Petitioners' father Arunachala Pandaram was the original tenant of the petition premises, under Kolandiah Chettiar, who was the brother of the 1st Revision Petitioner's husband, and after the death of Arunachala Pandaram, the tenancy is being continued by his Legal heirs and the tenancy had been attorned to the Revision Petitioners and therefore the 2nd Revision Petitioner is in occupation of the petition premises. The Revision Petitioners/tenants also has admitted that the respondents/landlords are residing in Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, which is adjacent to the petition premises, and owned by them. The requirement of the petition premises by the 2nd respondent herein for his own use and occupation is without bona fide. The respondents/landlords have owned the above said residential building at 200-F, and they have not chosen to occupy the same, when it fell vacant. It is also denied that the 2nd Revision Petitioner promised to shift his residence from the petition premises to a new house in Green Fields, which has been constructed by him, on transfer of his tenancy rights in favour of the the 2nd Revision Petitioner but he continues to reside in the petition premises as a tenant. The 2nd Revision Petitioner also has not transferred his leasehold rights of the petition premises to his brother, the 1st Revision Petitioner herein and in fact, he is also a tenant and is in occupation of the petition premises in such capacity. 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, both the respondents/landlords examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked the lawyer's notice sent by the landlords, dated 7.2.1998 as P.W.1 and the reply sent the tenants, dated 14.2.1998 as Ex.P2. The 1st Revision Petitioner examined himself as R.W.1. 5. 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, both the respondents/landlords examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked the lawyer's notice sent by the landlords, dated 7.2.1998 as P.W.1 and the reply sent the tenants, dated 14.2.1998 as Ex.P2. The 1st Revision Petitioner examined himself as R.W.1. 5. The learned Rent Controller in consideration of such oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and accepting the case of the Respondents/landlords, found that the requirement of the petition premises by the 2nd respondent for his own use and occupation, to have separate residence with his wife, is bona fide, and ordered eviction as per the order dated 25.7.2000 by allowing the Rent Control Original Petition. The said order of eviction has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, as per the judgment dated 19.7.2002 by allowing the Rent Control Appeal. Against those findings, the Revision Petitioners/tenants have filed the present Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/tenants submitted that the respondents/landlords have not proved that the requirement of the petition premises for the own use and occupation of the 2nd respondent herein, who is the son of the 1st respondent, namely, for his separate residence with his wife, is bona fide. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the Revision Petitioners/landlords have already been in possession of their own building, bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, which is adjacent to the petition premises, they are not entitled for possession of the petition premises for their own use as sought for by them. Learned counsel also submitted that the Rent Control Original Petition is mala fide. In fact, it was filed 16 months after the issuance of the lawyer's notice, Ex.P1, dated 7.2.1998. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/landlords also argued that inasmuch as the landlords are owning other residential building as referred to above, their requirement of the petition premises is without bona fide. 7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/tenants relied on the the following decisions:- (1)Onkar Nath -vs. - Ved Vyas reported in (1980)4 SCC 270 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely, (a)that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b)that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. (2) Ramalingam Pillai - vs. - Murugesan reported in 1993(1) L.W. 356 in which this Court (Venkataswami,J. as he then was) has held that absence of necessary pleadings and averments to the effect that the landlord's son for whom the building is required, does not own any non residential premises of his own and so the order of eviction cannot be supported and has to be set aside. (3) Fakir Mohideen vs. - Habibunnissa (died) reported in 1997 M.L.J.R 278 in which it is held by this Court as follows:- "In both Secs.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a landlord is entitled to get possession of the building if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own in the City, Town or Village concerned. In Sec.10(3)(a)(ii) of the said act, it is further said that in the case of a non-residential building also, in case if the landlord or member of his family is not occupying a building of his own, he is entitled to get possession. In both Secs.10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii), one of the qualifications for getting possession is that the landlord or the person for whose requirement the building is sought to be evicted, should not own a building of his own (whether the requirement is residential or non-residential) in the City, town or village)..." (4)T.Sivasubramaniam – vs. - (1999)7 SCC 275 , in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere desire of the landlord to live separately from his father cannot be attributed to his need for the premises occupied by the tenant. It is often seen that a desire often takes its origin from what one likes and dislikes and necessarily it is not dependent upon his need. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that sometimes the desire may be the outcome of one's need. So when a landlord desires a premises, the requirement of law is that the landlord must set out his need for the premises in his petition and establish that such a need is bona fide. The need must be bona fide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. 8. So when a landlord desires a premises, the requirement of law is that the landlord must set out his need for the premises in his petition and establish that such a need is bona fide. The need must be bona fide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that satisfactory evidence has been let in on the side of the landlords to show that the requirement of the petition premises is bona fide, for the own use and occupation by the 2nd respondent herein, who is the son of the 1st respondent, to have a separate residence with his wife, after his marriage. Learned counsel also submitted that though the landlords have been in occupation of another building owned by them, bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, which is adjacent to the petition premises, inasmuch as the 2nd respondent herein is not occupying the said residential building of his own, his requirement of the petition premises bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, the petition premises, for his separate residence with his wife, cannot be said to be mala fide and that the respondents/landlords are entitled for eviction of the Revision Petitioners/tenants from the above said petition premises. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has relied on the following decisions:- (1) S.Devan/V.Krishnan/K.Salim Ahmed - vs. N.Palaniappan(Landlord) -1996-2 L.W. 555, in which this Court has held that when each shop is having separate door number and each had been treated as a separate unit, it is always open to the landlord to sell each shop as a separate unit and hand over possession to the purchaser for his immediate occupation and enjoyment without affecting the landlord's occupation of another shop bearing separate door number. Hence, the contention that the landlord has to file the petition for eviction only under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 cannot be accepted. 10. The above said decision 1996-2-L.W.555 (supra), has been followed by this Court in - (2) Jothi Ammal – vs. - Kulandai Vadivel – 1998(III) CTC 457 , in which this Court has held that in the case of buildings bearing separate door numbers, which are two different buildings, eviction ordered under Section 10(3)(c)of the said Act is not sustainable. 11. The above said decision 1996-2-L.W.555 (supra), has been followed by this Court in - (2) Jothi Ammal – vs. - Kulandai Vadivel – 1998(III) CTC 457 , in which this Court has held that in the case of buildings bearing separate door numbers, which are two different buildings, eviction ordered under Section 10(3)(c)of the said Act is not sustainable. 11. The petition premises bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund is situated adjacent to the building, bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, in which the respondents/landlords, namely, the mother and son are residing as owners, for their own use and occupation. The petition premises was originally let out to one Arunachala pandaram, by the 1st Respondent's husband's brother, C.K.Kolandiah Chettiar, and on the death of Arunachala Pandaram, the 1st Revision Petitioner, who is unmarried and the elder son of Arunachala pandaram, along with his younger brother, the 2nd Revision Petitioner herein are residing in the petition premises as tenants. The requirement of the petition premises is sought by the respondents/landlords, after issuance of the lawyer's notice dated 7.2.1998, as the son of the 1st respondent herein, viz., the 2nd respondent herein got married and he wanted to set up separate residence with his wife. Such requirement of the petition premises by the respondents/landlords was denied by the Revision Petitioners/tenants, in the reply notice Ex.P2, dated 14.2.1998. It is admitted by R.W.1 in his evidence that the 2nd respondent herein got married. Further, in her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that after the marriage of her son, the 2nd respondent herein/P.W.2, the 2nd respondents and his wife have decided to live separately, and they belonged to Chettiar community. The 2nd respondent/P.W.2, in his evidence has stated that since after marriage, his wife and his mother/P.W.1 are not adjustable to each other, they have decided to set up separate residence and so, after the marriage of the 2nd respondent herein, the requirement of the petition premises is sought accordingly, for their separate residence, and a lawyer's notice was caused under Ex.P1. It is true that in modern days, the requirement for separate residence by the 2nd respondents herein to live with his wife, is necessitated so that there can be peace in the family and the disputes between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law can be avoided. It is true that in modern days, the requirement for separate residence by the 2nd respondents herein to live with his wife, is necessitated so that there can be peace in the family and the disputes between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law can be avoided. No doubt, in such a case, the mother/P.w.1 has to live separately in the premises bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, which is adjacent to the petition premises, so that, according to the evidence of P.W.2/the 2nd respondent herein, can set up separate residence in the petition premises bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, which is adjacent to the building bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, and he can also look after his mother/1st respondent. In the building bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, in which the respondents herein are now residing, along with the wife of P.W.2, there are four rooms including a kitchen, and similarly there are four rooms in the petition premises bearing Door No.200-G. Therefore, the respondents/landlords have established their case that the requirement of the petition premises is very much bona fide and the same is for their own use and occupation. 12. Further, the premises bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund is jointly owned by the 1st respondent herein and her son, the 2nd respondents. Similarly, both the respondents herein are co-owners in respect of the petition premises bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund. Therefore, inasmuch as the respondents herein are in occupation of the residential building bearing Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, jointly, there cannot be an embargo for seeking possession of the petition premises by the respondents herein for their own use and occupation, on this respect. 13. Therefore, as stated in the decisions cited supra, namely, 1996-2 L.W. 555 and in 1998(iii) CTC 457, the premises in which the respondents/landlords herein are residing at present, viz. Door No.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, which is adjacent to the petition premises, bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund, has got separate Door Number, and both the said premises can be considered separately, in which case, the requirement of the petition premises sought for the own use and occupation by the respondents/landlords, for the separate residence of the 2nd respondent along with his wife, cannot be said to be mala fide. Considering all these aspects, the Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly confirmed the order of eviction on that ground by the Rent Controller, and such order not being erroneous, is to be confirmed. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed. The judgment dated 19.7.2002 passed in R.C.A.No.16/2000 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Udhagamandalam is confirmed. No costs.