Judgment :- 1. Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the judgment and Decree passed in R.C.A No.7 of 2009 on the file of Rent Control Appellant Authority, Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai in R.C.O.P. No.24 of 2007 on 10.9.2009. 2. It is seen that the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No.24 of 2007 was filed by the Respondents herein against the Revision Petitioner/Tenant under Sections 10(2) (i) & 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 3. The learned Rent Controller by an order dated 10.9.2009, allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and ordered eviction of the Petitioner/Tenant. Aggrieved by which, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has preferred Rent Control Appeal. It is seen that the learned Rent Controller, has passed order of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation of the premises and committing act of theft of electricity, though the Respondents had not pleaded the said ground. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after considering the evidence available on record and also the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller only on the ground of additional accommodation of Landlords own use and occupation. Aggrieved by which the Revision has been preferred by the Revision Petitioner/Tenant. 4. Mr. Balasubramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree are not sustainable, in view of the mandatory provision under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein further contended that the First Respondent has got only a life estate in the property and only after the demise of the First Respondent her son, the Second Respondent would be the absolute owner of the property. However, the Second Respondent himself file the Rent Control Original petition under Section 10(3)(c) seeking eviction of the Petitioner/Tenant on the ground of additional accommodation for Landlord’s own use and occupation. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the First Respondent is entitled to possession and enjoyment of the R.C.O.P. premises and hence, the Second Respondent cannot maintain the Rent Control Original Petition. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the First Respondent is entitled to possession and enjoyment of the R.C.O.P. premises and hence, the Second Respondent cannot maintain the Rent Control Original Petition. 5. The Second Respondent has stated that he is a practicing Doctor and also running a laboratory in a portion of the building hence, he is in need of the premises for his additional accommodation. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in Vairam and Others v. M.S.R. Nageswaran, 2005 (5) CTC 549 , wherein it is held that to attract Section 10(3)(c), Landlord and Tenant should be in occupation of the same structure or building. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the provision does not include a member of the family of the Landlord. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. B. Saravanan and 7 Others, 1997 (2) LW 81 , this Court held as follows: “It is only when the Landlord says that he cannot meet the requirements or that the portion presently in his occupation is not sufficient for his needs, and he also wants to occupy that portion of the building occupied by the Tenant, it squarely comes under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. That means the structure or building must be occupied both by Landlord and Tenant. It is the occupation of both Landlord and Tenant in one structure that is contemplated under Section 10(3)(c). It is not the ownership of the building that matters. Even if the Landlord happens to be the owner of two adjoining buildings, that will not come under Section 10(3)(c).” 6. In B. Kandasamy Reddiar, etc. v. O. Gomathi Ammal, 2001 (2) CTC 177, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the scope of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act as follows: “…When Section 10(3)(c) refers to be Landlord occupying a part of the building, it inherently refers to another part of the building being occupied by the Tenant. It is true the part of the building occupied both by the Tenant and the Landlord would by itself constitute to be a ‘building’ under the definition clause. This itself reveals, which is under current that there is another part of the building or may be more than on part of the building either with Tenants or Landlord. It is true the part of the building occupied both by the Tenant and the Landlord would by itself constitute to be a ‘building’ under the definition clause. This itself reveals, which is under current that there is another part of the building or may be more than on part of the building either with Tenants or Landlord. If part of the building occupied by the Tenant is construed to be a building, then Landlord could never be in a position to occupy other part of the building: Such interpretation forgets that definition clause itself is flexible to make a ‘building’ to be a ’building’ and a part of building to be a building also to be used accordingly wherever necessary. If interpretation sought to be given on behalf of the Appellant is accepted, this would completely dismantle the purpose engrafting of opening word of Section 10(3)(c), namely, the Landlord who is occupying only part of the building”. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the Landlord and Tenant are occupying different portions of the same building, the Landlord can invoke Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, seeking additional accommodation, otherwise Landlord cannot claim eviction of the Tenant on the ground of additional accommodation. 8. Mr. S. Sounthar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Landlords has not disputed the legal preposition that the Landlord can seek eviction of the Tenant on the ground of additional accommodation only if he has any portion of the premises in his occupation, which is not sufficient for him. 9. The evidence available on record would show that the Second Respondent is the son of the First Respondent and also running his business as Doctor. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that for seeking eviction of the Tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, the Landlord must be in occupation of a portion of the building or superstructure. In the instant case, the Second Petitioner has stated that he is in occupation of a portion of the building, therefore Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is applicable. Mr. In the instant case, the Second Petitioner has stated that he is in occupation of a portion of the building, therefore Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is applicable. Mr. S. Sounthar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent also drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.3 of Rent Control Original Petition, wherein, both the Respondents herein have stated that the property was let out to the Petitioner herein and that was not disputed by the Petitioner/Tenant therefore as per Section 2(6) of the Act, the Second Respondent has to be construed as Landlord. It is clear that Section 2(6) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 reads as follows: ““Landlord” includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a Tenant”. 10. It is a well settled preposition of law that one need not be the owner of the property to be construed as Landlord. As per Section 2 of the Act, any one who receives or entitled to receive the rent of a building is Landlord. In the instant case, the Second Respondent who is the son of the First Respondent receives the rent. The learned Rent Controller has also given finding based on the admission made by Revision Petitioner who was examined as R.W.1, during his cross-examination that the Second Respondent herein was collecting the rent from him and therefore as per Section 2 of the Rent Control Act, the Second Respondent, who is collecting rent has to be construed as Landlord, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents herein. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 10(1)(8) and submitted that “No person, who is receiving or is entitle to receive rent of the building, merely as an agent of the Landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the Landlord, be entitled to apply for eviction of a Tenant”. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 10(1)(8) and submitted that “No person, who is receiving or is entitle to receive rent of the building, merely as an agent of the Landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the Landlord, be entitled to apply for eviction of a Tenant”. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the said provision is mandatory and therefore, without a written consent of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent is not entitled to maintain the R.C.O.P. itself under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents since the Respondents, mother and son respectively have jointly filed R.C.O.P., there is no need for the Second Respondent to seek written consent from the First Respondent herein under Section 10(8) of the Act. 12. As per the findings of the Courts below and the evidence available on record, the Second Respondent is collecting rent from the Petitioner/Tenant and further as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the R.C.O.P., itself was filed by Mangalamma, the First Respondent and her son, the Second Respondent herein. Hence written consent under Section 10(8) of the Act, is not needed to file the Rent Control Original Petition, seeking eviction. The compliance of Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act is mandatory, when a person collecting rent merely as an agent of the Landlord/landlady, files R.C.O.P. seeking eviction of the Tenant, independently. In the instant case, both the Respondents are mother and son respectively and they jointly filed the R.C.O.P. and the R.C.A., and CRP are also jointly being contested by them, hence, written consent is not required under the Act. 13. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also drew the attention of this Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in T. Sivasankaran v. H.K.N. Karcharlal Sowcar, AIR 1984 Mad. 37 , wherein it is held as follows: “… that the words if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business, which he is carrying on, should be interpreted liberally and cannot be confined to the needs of the Landlord personally hurt would also take the purposes of any member of his family. However, the distinction between Section 10(3)(a) and Section 10(3)(c) has to be maintained. However, the distinction between Section 10(3)(a) and Section 10(3)(c) has to be maintained. In other words, in order to attract Section 10(3)(c) the Landlord who files an Application for eviction must be in the occupation of a portion of the premises for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative and hold that a member of the family of the Landlord”. 14. The definition of member of the family in relation to the Landlord under Section 2(6-A) of the Act, has been amended, so as to include son, daughter, grand-child or dependent parent of the Landlord and that can be made applicable to Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. In T. Sivasankaran v. H.K.N. Karcharlal Sowcar, AIR 1984 Mad. 37 , Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “On a consideration of the above decisions, we are of the view that the requirement of the Landlord in Section 10(3)(c) of the act cannot be confined to his personal requirement, and the Landlord will be entitled to maintain a Petition for eviction for additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes of himself or for any member of his family or for purposes of a business which he carrying on by himself or by any member of his family.” 15. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the aforesaid decision is directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the Respondents/Landlords have pleaded and established their claim, that the Second Respondent son of the First Respondent is in need of the premises on the ground of additional accommodation. 16. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, only the First Respondent is the landlady hence, the Second Respondent can not claim additional accommodation. In the instant case, the Petitioner as RW1 has admitted that the Second Respondent is receiving rent and further the Petitioners have filed R.C.O.P., jointly therefore, no written consent is required under Section 10(8) of Act. In the decision in T. Sivasankara v. H.K.N. Karcharlal Sowcar, AIR 984 Mad. 37, it is made clear in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that any member of the family of the Landlord is entitled to maintain a Petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. In the decision in T. Sivasankara v. H.K.N. Karcharlal Sowcar, AIR 984 Mad. 37, it is made clear in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that any member of the family of the Landlord is entitled to maintain a Petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the Second Respondent being the son of the First Respondent is a family member of the First Respondent, infact he is collecting rent as admitted by the Petitioner/Tenant hence as per Section 2(6-A) of the Act, he has to be construed as Landlord. Even otherwise, being the son and family member of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent is entitled to seek eviction of the Petitioner/Tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. It is well settled that for seeking eviction of Tenant, on the ground of additional accommodation, under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, the land lord must be in possession and enjoyment of a portion of the building or super structure relating to the R.C.O.P. premises. The definition of member of family of the landlord/landlady would include, son, daughter, grandchild or dependant parent to invoke Section 10(3) of the Act. A mere agent who is collecting rent is not entitle to maintain a Petition for evicting Tenant without the written consent of the landlord as contemplated under Section 10(8) of the Act. 17. However, the First Respondent life estate holder and her son the Second Respondent have jointly filed the R.C.O.P., relating to the C.R.P., hence, no written consent is required as contemplated under Section 10(8) of the Act. It is made clear that as per evidence available on record the claim of the Respondents, has been established under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. 18. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I could find no error in the concurrent finding of the Courts below so as to warrant any interference by this Court under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. As there is no illegality or material irregularity in the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Authority, confirming the order and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, the Revision is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the Revision is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner is directed to vacate and handover the possession of the premises within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.