Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioners are the landlords. The Revision Petitioners filed the above petition for eviction of the respondents on the ground of owners occupation and Act of Waste. 2. The case of the revision petitioners / landlords was that they purchased the property under a registered Sale Deed, dated 05.02.1999 with an intention of utilizing the property for the business purpose of the 2nd petitioner and son of the 1st and 3rd petitioners and Thiru.Mohideen Abdul Khader, who is the son of the 1st and 3rd petitioners is carrying on business under the name and style of "Kanmani Departmental Stores" in a rental premises at Seven Wells, Chennai – 1 and they want to do business in the premises belonging to them and therefore, a notice was issued on 04.01.2001 calling upon the respondents to vacate and hand over vacant possession for owners occupation of the premises by the petitioners and even after that, the respondents did not vacate and the respondents have also committed act of Waste by demolishing the sun shade and also the load bearing walls and therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted. 3. The respondents / tenants contested the petition stating that the petition is barred under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") and the petitioners / landlords filed RCOP.No.593 of 2001 against the respondents / tenants for eviction under the same ground and that petition was allowed to be dismissed for default and thereafter, an application was filed to restore the eviction petition and that was also allowed to be dismissed for default and hence the present petition filed under the same ground is barred under Section 19 of the Act. There is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners / landlords and the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 is doing business in a small portion and he does not require a large extent, for his business and the petition was filed only with a view to evict the respondents / tenants. Both the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority held that the present petition for eviction is barred under Section 19 of the Act as the earlier petition in RCOP.No.593 of 2001 was allowed to be dismissed for default and there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners / landlords. Both the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority held that the present petition for eviction is barred under Section 19 of the Act as the earlier petition in RCOP.No.593 of 2001 was allowed to be dismissed for default and there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners / landlords. Hence this revision is filed. 4. Mr. Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/landlords submitted that the Courts below erroneously held that the present application for eviction is barred under Section 19 of the Act and the earlier petition in RCOP.No.593 of 2001 was dismissed for default and no issues were settled or decided in the earlier application and hence Section 19 of the Act will not be applicable. He further contended that the petitioners/landlords have proved the bonafide and admittedly the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 is doing business in a rental premises which is situated 50 meters away and they have purchased the premises for the purpose of doing business in their own premises and when the petitioners/landlords require the premises for the business of their son and when the petitioners / landlords do not have any other premises of their own in the locality and when the intention of the landlords is bonafide, eviction ought to have been ordered and without appreciating the principles, the Courts below erred in holding that there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners/landlords. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants submitted that both the Courts below have rightly held that the present petition is barred under Section 19 of the Act and there is no change of pleadings in RCOP.No.1680 of 2003, and in both the RCOPs' the pleadings are identical (RCOP.Nos.593 of 2001 and 1680 of 2003) and earlier RCOP.No.593 of 2001 was dismissed for default and the petition filed to restore the same was also dismissed and that has become final. Therefore, the present petition in RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 is clearly barred under Section 19 of the Act and that was rightly considered by the Courts below and held against the revision petitioners / landlords. Therefore, the present petition in RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 is clearly barred under Section 19 of the Act and that was rightly considered by the Courts below and held against the revision petitioners / landlords. He further submitted that admittedly, the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 is doing business in a small area and the petitioners' property is having larger extent and no evidence has been let in to prove the nature of business, the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 is doing business in a rental premises and when he wanted the petition premises for doing business he has to make preparation for that and in the absence of such particulars, it cannot be stated that the petitioners bonafide require the petition premises and considering all these aspects, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the petitions. 6. Heard both sides. 7. In this revision, we have to find out whether the present petition in RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 filed by the petitioners / landlords for eviction is barred under Section 19 of the Act by the reason of the dismissal of the earlier RCOP.No.593 of 2001 filed by the petitioners against the respondents and whether the requirement of the petitioners is bonafide. 8. Admittedly RCOP.No.593 of 2001 was filed by the petitioners for eviction on the ground of owners occupation and Act of Waste and that application was allowed to be dismissed for non prosecution and an application filed in M.P.No.567 of 2003 to restore the rent control application was also dismissed. Therefore, we have to see whether the present petition in RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 is barred under Section 19 of the Act. Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act which reads as follows: "Any application under Section 3A or Section 12, and any application under sub-section (2) or sub-section(3) or sub-section (3-A) of S.10 or under Sections 14,15 or 16, shall be summarily rejected by the Authorized Officer or the Controller, as the case may be, if such application) raises between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, substantially the same issues as have been finally decided or as purport to have been finally decided, in a former proceeding. i. under Act, or ii. i. under Act, or ii. under any other law from time to time in force before the date of the commencement of this Act and relating to matters dealt with in this Act." Therefore, if the earlier petition was between the same parties and the issues in both the petitions were similar and all the issues were finally decided in the former proceedings, the above provision will be attracted. In this case, the parties in RCOP.No.593 of 2001 and RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 are one and the same and the grounds for eviction in both the petitions are also same and the pleadings are also exactly the same. Nevertheless, the present application cannot be stated to be barred under Section 19 of the Act as the issues were not finally decided in the former proceedings and RCOP.No.593 of 2001 was dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, it cannot be stated that the present application for eviction namely RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 is barred under Section 19 of the Act as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. In the judgment reported in (1949) 2 MLJ page 594, a Division Bench of this Court, it is held that without adjudication on the merits, an issue cannot be said to have been finally decided, so as to get barred and the subsequent application for the same relief in maintenable. In the absence of any provision similar to the provision Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, it cannot be said that there is a general Rule of procedure, according to which, once a suit filed by the petitioner is dismissed for default for non appearance of the plaintiff / petitioner, subsequent suit was not to be entertained for the same relief based on the same cause of action. The above judgment was rendered with reference to the Madras Building (Lease Rent Control) Act (XV of 1946) Section 10 of the said Act (XV of 1946) similar to Section 19 and therefore, as per the above judgment, the present application is not barred under section 19 of the Act, since the issues were not finally decided in the former proceedings. In the judgment reported in 2009 (1) SCC 689 ,(State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. In the judgment reported in 2009 (1) SCC 689 ,(State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the scope of order IX Rule 9 was considered and held that when the suit was dismissed for non prosecution it was not passed on merit and that order cannot operate as resjudicata. Similarly in the judgment reported in 1993 (1) MLJ 60 , (Baliah Nadar and another Vs. Rayappan and others) a Single Bench of this Court, the same principles are laid down. Therefore, having regard to the above judgments, the Courts below erred in holding that the present application is barred under Section 19 of the Act. 9. The petitioners/landlords filed applications for eviction on the ground of owners occupation and act of waste both the Courts below have dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners requirement and as a matter of fact the learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords also did not press the relief of eviction on the ground of act of waste. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below erred in dismissing the application that there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioners/landlords and there is no proof for the Act of Waste. 10. Admittedly the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 is doing business in a rental premises in a nearby area and it is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner and the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 are doing business in a rented premises and they purchased the building only for the purpose of doing business in their own premises. On the petitioners side P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and gave evidence about their requirement. When petitioners/landlords filed an application for eviction on the basis of owners occupation in respect of non residential premises, they have to prove the following ingredients:- i. The Building is a non residential one. ii. They have no other non residential building of their own except the tenanted premises. iii. They are already doing business or have made preparation for starting business. iv. Their requirement is bonafide. 11. It is not the case of the respondents that the landlords have any other building of their own in the locality. ii. They have no other non residential building of their own except the tenanted premises. iii. They are already doing business or have made preparation for starting business. iv. Their requirement is bonafide. 11. It is not the case of the respondents that the landlords have any other building of their own in the locality. It is also admitted that the tenanted building is a non residential in character and the son of the petitioners/landlords namely petitioners 1 and 3 is admittedly doing business in a rental premises in the nearby area. Therefore, the first three ingredients stated above are satisfied. The Courts below dismissed the application holding that no proof was adduced by the petitioners/landlords that they have taken steps to commence business in the scheduled property, and admittedly the son of the petitioners 1and 3 is having business in a smaller area and therefore, there is no bonafide. According to me, the approach of the Courts below is erroneous and perverse. The law requires that the petitioners/landlords must be carrying on business and they require the premises for doing business. Even assuming that the son of the petitioners/landlords is doing business in a smaller extent, no law prohibits a person from expanding his business in a larger area and the fact the son of the revision petitioners/landlords 1 and 3 is doing business in the nearby area would also prove his experience and would also prove the bonafide intention of the revision petitioners/landlords. Further P.W.1 and 2 have let in evidence and spoke about their bonafide requirement for their own business purpose. Further the Courts below erred in holding that they have not filed application immediately after the purchase of the building and they should not have waited for some years to file application for eviction. According to me, all the above the ingredients were proved by the landlords and the Courts below on erroneous consideration dismissed the application. Hence the petitioners/landlords have proved the bonafide requirement and they are entitled to the order of eviction. Hence, the order of the Courts below is set aside and RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is allowed and the revision is also allowed. Hence the petitioners/landlords have proved the bonafide requirement and they are entitled to the order of eviction. Hence, the order of the Courts below is set aside and RCOP.No.1680 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is allowed and the revision is also allowed. The tenants/respondents are granted six months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession, on condition of filing an affidavit of undertaking by the Respondents / Tenants within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, undertaking to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition premises to the revision petitioners/landlords with a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.