Judgment : 1. The tenant (hereinafter referred to as "sub-tenant") is the Revision Petitioner herein. The first respondent is the landlord. The second respondent is stated to be the tenant (hereinafter referred to as "chief tenant") under the first respondent. The revision petitioner claims that the second respondent is the owner of the property so far as he is concerned, i.e., under whom the revision petitioner is stated to be the tenant. 2. The first respondent herein / landlord has filed RCOP No.22 of 2004, against the chief-tenant (R-1) and the sub-tenant / revision petitioner (R-2), seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for his personal occupation. 2.1. It was stated in the petition before the Rent Controller that the first respondent herein is the owner and M/s.Kapiraj Exports (R-2) is the chief-tenant under them. 2.2. The said petition was resisted by the sub-tenant (M/s. Goyal MG Gases Limited) on the ground that, there is no privity of contract between the sub-tenant (revision petitioner) and the landlord (first respondent herein), M/s.MPI Exports. The other defence is that petition under Sections 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 10 (3) (e) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act") is not maintainable, as the landlord was already owning a commercial property, adjacent to the petition-mentioned property. 2.3. The trial court has ordered eviction, by the order, dated 22.11.2010. The sub-tenant has preferred RCA No.17 of 2011 before the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. 2.4. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the said RCA, by the order, dated 28.01.2013. 2.5. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The owner of the property has also filed RCOP No.33 of 2013 for fixation of fair rent against the Civil Revision Petitioner / sub-tenant and thereafter, got it withdrawn. 3.1. The second respondent herein / chief tenant has also filed RCOP No.37 of 2013 for eviction and RCOP No.38 of 2013, for fixation of fair rent, both against the Civil Revision Petitioner / sub-tenant. 4. Before entering into the merits of the matter, it is necessary to ascertain the status of the parties. 4.1. 3.1. The second respondent herein / chief tenant has also filed RCOP No.37 of 2013 for eviction and RCOP No.38 of 2013, for fixation of fair rent, both against the Civil Revision Petitioner / sub-tenant. 4. Before entering into the merits of the matter, it is necessary to ascertain the status of the parties. 4.1. According to the case of the second respondent (M/s.Kapiraj Exports), who is the petitioner in RCOP No.37 of 2013, the owner of the property is M/s.MPI Exports Private Limited (who is the first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition). According to the case of the second respondent, he entered into lease agreement, dated 12.03.1997, with the owner of the property, namely, M/s.MPI Exports Pvt. Ltd., and only in pursuance of the permission granted by the owner, it has chosen to sublet the premises in favour of the Revision Petitioner. It is further alleged that only in pursuance of the right granted to sublet the premises, the second respondent entered into a lease deed with the Revision Petitioner, by lease deed, dated 28.02.1998. Therefore, it is clear that the first respondent herein is the owner of the property of whom, the second respondent is the chief tenant and the Revision Petitioner is the sub-tenant. 4.2. Therefore, the parties are accordingly described hereinbefore / hereinafter. 5. The learned Rent Controller has given a finding that the lease agreement between the owner of the property, namely, M/s.MPI Exports and the chief-tenant, M/s.Kapiraj Exports, was only for a period of 11 months and thereafter, as the tenancy is not renewed, the lease agreement stands terminated and therefore, the chief-tenant is liable to be evicted. There is yet another observation regarding Ex.R-2 Memorandum of understanding under which also the sub-tenancy arrangement between the chief-tenant / M/s.Kapiraj Exports and the sub-tenant / M/s.Goyal MG Gases Limited, had come to an end and therefore, the sub-tenant is liable to be evicted. 5.1. These findings, as rightly observed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, are not legal. The function of learned Rent Control Authority is to find out, whether the grounds of eviction as permitted under the Act has been made out or not. Therefore, the point to be considered is, whether the grounds of eviction, as alleged by the landlord herein, has been established or not. 6. The function of learned Rent Control Authority is to find out, whether the grounds of eviction as permitted under the Act has been made out or not. Therefore, the point to be considered is, whether the grounds of eviction, as alleged by the landlord herein, has been established or not. 6. The documents marked, i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-13, on the side of the landlord would go to show that the landlord intended to start a new venture to produce different products, other than those products which are already manufactured, and therefore, the claim for personal occupation, i.e., for the establishment of yet another business is established. 6.1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also has taken note of the submission made by the second respondent herein in O.S.No.435 of 2003 that M/s.Kapiraj Exports (chief tenant) requires only breathing time to vacate the premises and they have no idea to stay in the property permanently. 6.2. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot be said to be incorrect. 7. The learned counsel representing the sub-tenant (revision petitioner) relied upon the following decisions and the relevant dictum laid down therein are extracted for convenient reference:- (i) 1998 (II) CTC 211 (Subramaniam, C.R. v. N.Vasudevan):- "Landlord seeking eviction of premises for non-residential purpose. Landlord co-owner of another non-residential building in same town. Rent Controller and appellate authority ordering eviction after finding that requirement of landlord was bona fide. Landlord even though only co-owner of another non-residential premises is occupying his own non-residential building and hence disentitled from seeking eviction. Revision Petition allowed and order of eviction set-aside." (ii) 2004 (1) CTC 94 (Bata India Limited, Rep. By its Manager v. M.R.Manickam):- "17. .... since the landlord is in occupation of his own building near the new bus stop of an extent of 12000 sq.ft for carrying on his business, in which he is a partner, he is deemed to be in occupation of his own premises for non-residential purposes. So he cannot get another building to carry on the same business, while he is in occupation of his own building. The requirement of the respondent is also not bonafide. The Rent Control authorities has failed to focus on the main ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act under which eviction was sought for. So he cannot get another building to carry on the same business, while he is in occupation of his own building. The requirement of the respondent is also not bonafide. The Rent Control authorities has failed to focus on the main ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act under which eviction was sought for. The impugned orders are set aside." (iii) 2004 (1) CTC 668 (Kathan v. Scaw Manak Chand Shohaji):- "12. ...But it is repeatedly held that mere desire is not equivalent to requirement. Requirement implies a greater urgency and need for the premises whereas a desire or a wish is not the same. It is also necessary for the landlord to prove that he has no other premises in his occupation in the same city or town or village as the case may be. The tenant cannot point out to any other building as an alternative for the landlord's occupation. It is for this reason that it was urged that the failure to produce the partition deed leads to the inference that other properties were also allotted to the petitioner..... 15. Paragraph No. 7 of the petition runs as follows: "The petitioner requires the under-mentioned building for his own occupation. The petitioner's need, for his own use of the said building is a genuine, reasonable and a bonafide one. Hence the respondent is liable to be evicted from the said building according to law. He is now living with his father and since he is married he wants to live separately". There is absolutely no pleading that he is not in occupation of a residential building of his own. Therefore, even the basic requirement of Section 10(3)(a)(i) has not been satisfied and the petitioner has not proved his bona fides." (iv) 1998-2-L.W. 89 (Mohammod Alias Bawa Sahib and another v. B.Vimalchand):- "Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), S. 10(3)(iiii) (a). Major share of the property belonging to the joint family. Application for eviction on the ground of requirement for owner's occupation. Mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough. Landlord has to prove more than desire." 7.1. The issue to be considered is, whether these decisions would be applicable to the facts of this case. 7.2. Major share of the property belonging to the joint family. Application for eviction on the ground of requirement for owner's occupation. Mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough. Landlord has to prove more than desire." 7.1. The issue to be considered is, whether these decisions would be applicable to the facts of this case. 7.2. A perusal of paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, discussing documents under Exs.P-5 to P-11, would reveal that the landlord intends to commence a new business and the requirement is bonafide. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that it is a mere desire on the part of the landlord to commence the business has no substance. Crossing the level of desire, the landlord has taken steps which would indicate that his real intention is to start a new business. 7.3. Learned counsel representing the first respondent herein / landlord has submitted that the sub-tenant (revision petitioner) has no independent right apart from the right of the chief-tenant and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition, by the sub-tenant, is not maintainable, especially in the absence of the chief-tenant filing the Civil Revision Petition. In support of the said contention, the decision reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 228 (Pramod Kumar Jain v. Sudha Choubey and others) is relied upon, where-under it has been held that once the tenant is ordered to be vacated the consequences automatically flow and that the sub-tenancy also comes to an end. 7.4. It is represented that the chief-tenant (second respondent herein) has already vacated the premises. Therefore, the revision petitioner, as the sub-tenant, has no subsisting right de-hors the right of the chief-tenant. Hence, the revision petitioner has no right to be in possession of the suit property and hence, the order of eviction passed is to be sustained. 8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Two months time is hereby granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.