ORDER : The civil revision petition is directed by the tenants against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21.04.2017, made in R.C.A.No.6 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Tuticorin, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 02.01.2012, made in R.C.O.P.No.36 of 2009, on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the rent control original petition. 3. The petition for eviction has been laid by the landlord, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. The case of the landlord in brief is that the property described in the schedule to the petition (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the property’) is a non-residential building and the landlord-firm is doing business in Door No.382, G.C.Road, which is located few shops away from the property concerned for the past several years by paying monthly rent. The landord-firm purchased the property for its own use on 24.04.2002 and as the first respondent was in occupation of the same as a tenant, at that point of time, the landlord-firm informed the first respondent about the factum of its purchase of the property for their own use and therefore, requested him to vacate the building as early as possible. At the request of the respondents, the landlord-firm was now and then granting time to vacate the property and while so, inasmuch as sufficient time had already been granted to the respondents to find some other accommodation for their business and as they failed to vacate the property concerned, the landlord-firm informed the respondents that no further time would be granted and inasmuch as the respondents did not take any concrete steps to vacate the property, the landlord-firm refused to receive the rent and subsequently, on 18.09.2009, the landlord-firm sent a registered notice to the respondents terminating the tenancy with effect from 30.09.2009 and the respondents received the same, but sent a reply contending false allegations and also enclosing a demand draft for two months rent to the landlord-firm. The allegation that Door Nos.382, 383, 384, 386 and 388 are owned by the landlord-firm is false. The allegation that Door Nos.382, 383, 384, 386 and 388 are owned by the landlord-firm is false. Inasmuch as the first respondent in the reply claimed that he as well as his wife / second respondent are doing business in the property, the second respondent has also been impleaded as a party respondent in this case. Inasmuch as the property concerned is needed for the landlord-firm's business purposes bona fidely, according to the landlord-firm, it has been necessitated to lay the petition for eviction. 5. The case of the respondents in brief is that the petition for eviction is not maintainable either in law or on facts and to the notice sent by the landlord-firm, dated 18.09.2009, the respondents sent a suitable reply contending true facts and it is true that the property is owned by the landlord-firm and even prior to the purchase of the property by it, the respondents have been carrying on oil business in the property and after the purchase of the property by the landlord-firm, the tenancy was attorned in its favour and the rent has been paid duly to it. It is false to state that the landlord-firm has purchased the property for the purpose of carrying on its business therein. It is false to state that the landlord-firm had been demanding the respondents to vacate the property and also had been granting time now and then to vacate the property and the respondents have failed to vacate the property as promised. The petition has been laid by the landlord- firm for eviction without bona fide intention and the landlord-firm is the owner of Door Nos.382, 383, 384, 386 and 388 and also owns shops at 2nd Street, Tooveypuram and inasmuch as the landlord-firm is owning various vacant properties as above stated, the case of the landlord-firm that it requires the property concerned for starting its business therein is not true and bona fide. The respondents do not own any property in Tuticorin and inasmuch as the landlord-firm had refused to receive the rent willfully and deliberately, steps had been taken by the respondents to deposit the rent in the Court. The main object of the present petition instituted by the landlord-firm is only to extract more rent from the respondents and not otherwise. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The main object of the present petition instituted by the landlord-firm is only to extract more rent from the respondents and not otherwise. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the petitioner's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties, the Rent Controller was pleased to order the eviction of the tenants from the property as sought for by the landlord-firm. Aggrieved over the same, the tenants preferred an appeal and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings and conclusion of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenants. 8. The following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: i. Whether the landlord-firm is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenants from the property on the ground of owner's occupation for the purpose of starting its business therein? and ii. To what relief the revision petitioners / tenants are entitled to? POINT NO.I: 9. It is not in dispute that the property belonged to the petitioner / landlord. It is found that the petitioner / landlord being a firm represented by its partner T.Dharmar and when the case of the landlord-firm that it is the owner of the property concerned, which fact, as such, is not in dispute and when according to the landlord-firm, it has laid the petition for eviction of the tenants from the property on the ground of owner's occupation for starting its business therein, it is found that the property is sought for only for the purpose of carrying on the business of the partnership firm therein. The main ground, under which the landlord-firm's requirement of the property is resisted, is that according to the respondents, the landlord-firm is in occupation of Door Nos.382, 383, 384, 386 and 388 and also owns shops at 2nd Street, Tooveypuram and therefore, it is contended by the tenants that the requirement of the property for the landlord-firm's own occupation i.e., for carrying on its business therein is not bona fide and thus, the landlord-firm is not entitled to seek for eviction of the tenants on the ground of owner's occupation. 10. Admittedly, the property involved in the matter is a non-residential building. As seen from the evidence adduced in the matter, it is found that the landlord-firm as on date is carrying on its business at Door Nos.382 and 384, G.C.Road, which is located few shops away from the property concerned. It is not is dispute that the property, where the landlord-firm is carrying on its business at present on rental basis belongs to Kamaraj College Trust. It is also seen that the landlord-firm has been paying the rent to its landlord for carrying on business therein as evidenced from the rental receipts marked on the side of the landlord-firm. 11. It is the specific case of the landlord-firm that it has purchased the property concerned only for the purpose of carrying on its business therein. As rightly found by the Courts below, when the landlord-firm is carrying on its business in a rented building, which is situated few shops away from the property concerned, it could be seen that the landlord-firm in order to carry on its business in its own building has endeavoured to purchase the property concerned and therefore, it could be seen that prima facie the requirement of the property concerned by the landlord seems to be bona fide. 12. As per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, it is found that the landlord subject to the provisions of Clause (d) may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned, which is his own. 13. The above provision of law has come to be interpreted by the various decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts. 13. The above provision of law has come to be interpreted by the various decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts. In this connection, the Apex Court in the decision reported in 1998 (III) CTC 108 [V.Radhakrishnan vs. S.N.Loganatha Mudaliar] has held that in a petition for seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the landlord can seek for eviction of the tenant for the benefit of the member of his family notwithstanding that such landlord himself is occupying the building of his own for carrying on business as long as such member of the family for whose benefit eviction is sought does not occupy any premises of his own in city or town. 14. The above position of law has been further expatiated by the Apex Court in the above said decision in the following manner: “12. On a plain reading of Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act, it appears to us that the legislature intended that a landlord seeking eviction of the tenant could be disentitled from claiming possession of the non-residential premises where he requires those premises for his own use, if he is occupying a non-residential building of his own. similarly, the landlord would also be disentitled from claiming possession of non-residential premises for the benefit of a member of his family, if that member of the family was in occupation of non-residential building of his own. Any other interpretation of this Section would not only be doing violence to the plain language of the Section but would result in absurdity inasmuch as the benefit of the provision would stand denied to the family members of the landlord, who do not occupy any premises of their own and for whose benefit eviction is sought, if the landlord himself is in occupation of a non-residential premises of his own. The fact that the landlord, who seeks eviction for the benefit of a member of his family is himself occupying a building of his own, cannot operate as a bar to the landlord seeking eviction for the benefit of a member of his family, who does not occupy any premises of his own.” 15. The fact that the landlord, who seeks eviction for the benefit of a member of his family is himself occupying a building of his own, cannot operate as a bar to the landlord seeking eviction for the benefit of a member of his family, who does not occupy any premises of his own.” 15. Similarly, as regards the object of the Rent Control Legislation, in the decision reported in 2002-4-L.W.802 [Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal], the Apex Court has held that it does not serve only the interest of the tenants as such, on the other hand, it should also be interpreted in such a manner that the interest of the landlord should also be given importance and with reference to the same, the following observations of the Apex Court are required to be pointed out, which read as follows: “9. The Rent Control Legislations are heavily loaded in favour of the tenants treating them as weaker sections of the society requiring legislative protection against exploitation and unscrupulous devices of greedy landlords. The Legislative intent has to be respected by the Courts while interpreting the laws. But it is being uncharitable to Legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The Legislature is fair to the tenants and to the landlords both. The Courts have to adopt a reasonable and balanced approach while interpreting Rent Control Legislations starting with an assumption that an equal treatment has been meted out to both the sections of the society. In spite of the overall balance tilting in favour of the tenants, while interpreting such of the provisions as take care of the interest of landlord the Court should not hesitate in leaning in favour of the landlords. Such provisions are engrafted in rent control legislations to take care of those situations where the landlord too are week and feeble and feel humble.” 16. Such provisions are engrafted in rent control legislations to take care of those situations where the landlord too are week and feeble and feel humble.” 16. That apart, in the above cited decision, after taking into consideration the various decisions with reference to the requirements of the landlord, in case of possession of the property under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act as also with reference to the other similar provisions in various rent control legislations, the Supreme Court has interpreted the above provision of law in the following manner: “24. We are of the opinion that the expression 'for his own use' as occurring in 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expression must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as "his" or "his own" requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identity nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. 17. From the above cited decisions of the Apex Court, it is found that the landlord can seek for eviction of the tenant from the non-residential building even for the benefit of any member of his family notwithstanding that such landlord himself is occupying the building of his own for carrying on business, the only rider being that such member of the family for whose benefit the eviction is sought for does not occupy any premises of his own in the concerned city or town. 18. As already adverted to, the tenants have resisted the case of the landlord-firm mainly on the ground that the landlord-firm owns Door Nos.382, 383, 384, 386 and 388 and also shops at 2nd Street, Tooveypuram. The said defence set forth by the tenants is seriously controverted by the landlord- firm. According to the landlord-firm, it does not own any building at present and carrying on its business in a rented building. In this connection, the evidence of R.W.1 seems significant. The first respondent has examined himself as R.W1. During the course of his cross-examination, he has admitted that four shops away from the property concerned, the landlord is doing business in a rented building. Further, he has also admitted that he does not know whether the landlord had been carrying on business earlier at Door No.383 and subsequently, he had entrusted the same to the landlord of the said property. Further, he has also admitted that he does not know whether the landlord had been carrying on business earlier at Door No.383 and subsequently, he had entrusted the same to the landlord of the said property. Further, he has also admitted that at Door Nos.386 and 388, there are godown shops in the name of D.D.Malligai and also admitted that at the shop located at Tooveypuram, the brothers are in occupation and doing business and he does not know in whose name the said shop stands and also to the suggestion put to him that the building situated at Tooveypuram does not belong to the landlord, he has only stated that he does not know about the same. Such being the evidence of R.W1, his case that the landlord is owning various shops as alleged in the counter as such cannot be accepted in any manner sans any proof or material with reference to the same worth acceptance. From the above evidence of R.W1, it is found that the landlord as such is not owning any property or other shops of its own for carrying on its business. 19. However, it is strenuously argued by the learned counsel appearing for the tenants that as seen from the admission of P.W1, the Court could easily come to the conclusion that the landlord-firm is in occupation of other shops of its own and in such view of the matter, as the provision of law enshrined under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act has not been complied with or satisfied, it is his contention that the landlord-firm cannot maintain the eviction petition. P.W1, during the course of his evidence, particularly, during the course of cross-examination, has reiterated that the shops at which they are carrying on business bears Door Nos.382 and 384. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that in the seven shops located in the same building, he has purchased two shops and in one shop, the respondent is carrying on business and the other shop is with him and he has four sons and one son is carrying on business with him, and the said shop bears Door No.388 and other than the said shop, he is carrying on business on rent at two shops bearing Door Nos.382 and 384. Further, P.W.1 has also deposed during the course of cross-examination that at Tooveypuram, he owns a shop and the said shop has been given to his two sons. Pointing to the above evidence of P.W1, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the tenants that inasmuch as there is a clear admission on the part of P.W.1 that he owns other shops, the requirement of the landlord of the property concerned is not genuine and bona fide and hence, the petition for eviction is liable to be dismissed. 20. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord that the evidence of P.W1 should be read in toto and so viewed, it is his contention that P.W.1 has clearly deposed that out of the two shops, which he had purchased in the same building, one is in the occupation of the tenants and the other is in the occupation of his sons for doing business and therefore, it is stated that the landlord-firm as such is not owning any vacant building as on date to carry on its business and it is only carrying on business in a rented building i.e., at Door Nos.383 and 384 and thus, according to him, the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. Further, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the landlord that as regards the shop at Tooveypuram, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is in the occupation of his son. 21. Further, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the landlord that as regards the shop at Tooveypuram, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is in the occupation of his son. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the landlord-firm argued that considering the interpretation of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act by the Apex Court as pointed above, when the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the property even for the requirement for any member of his family and when it is the specific case of P.W.1 that he has allotted the other shops belonging to him to his sons for carrying on their respective business, which fact has not been controverted by the respondents by adducing any reliable or convincing material and when it is the specific case of the landlord-firm that it has purchased the property concerned only for the purpose of carrying on its firm business, it is argued that in the absence of any material placed by the tenants that the landlord-firm is owning any vacant shop / property as on date of the petition or subsequent thereto, according to him, the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and accordingly, the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenants from the property concerned. The above argument of the learned counsel seems acceptable when it is assessed in conjunction with the principles of law outlined by the Apex Court in the various decisions as detailed above. 22. It is not the case of the tenants that the landlord's sons are also carrying on the partnership business of the petitioner along with the landlord. The above argument of the learned counsel seems acceptable when it is assessed in conjunction with the principles of law outlined by the Apex Court in the various decisions as detailed above. 22. It is not the case of the tenants that the landlord's sons are also carrying on the partnership business of the petitioner along with the landlord. In such view of the matter, it is found that when the petition has been laid for eviction for the purpose of carrying on the business of the landlord's firm and when it is found that the sons of the landlord are not in the subject business but carrying on separate business elsewhere, no doubt in the building of the landlord as such, it is found that firm, where the landlord is a partner in firm, would not debar the landlord to claim any other building belonging to him exclusively for carrying on its business and in this connection, the decision reported in 2010 (3) MWN (Civil) 734 [The Special Oficer, Tamil Nadu Handloom Wavers' Cooperative Society and others vs. M.V.M.Chellamuthu Pillai] is relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord. A perusal of the same would go to show that when a landlord, who is a partner in firm, owns the property and in the occupation of others, the same by itself would not disentitle the landlord to seek for possession of another property belonging to him on the ground of owner's occupation for the business of the firm. 23. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the Courts below have rightly determined the issues involved in the matter both factually as well as legally taking into account the bona fide requirement of the landlord of the property concerned and accordingly, held that the landlord's requirement is genuine and bona fide and entitled to seek for the eviction of the property concerned. 24. However, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants, in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1994-1-L.W. 24 [S.Devaji vs. K.Sudarshana Rao] and 2004 (1) CTC 94 [Bata India Limited, Rep. by its Manager vs. M.R.Manickam] and as regards the fact that admission being the best evidence relied upon the decision reported in (2012) 8 SCC 516 [Ahmedsaheb (Dead) by LRs. and others vs. Sayed Ismail]. by its Manager vs. M.R.Manickam] and as regards the fact that admission being the best evidence relied upon the decision reported in (2012) 8 SCC 516 [Ahmedsaheb (Dead) by LRs. and others vs. Sayed Ismail]. The above cited decisions are taken into consideration and as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the landlord, the said decisions had been rendered taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case pertaining thereto and when it has been clearly established that the landlord is in the bona fide requirement of the property concerned for carrying on its business and does not own another property of its own, at present vacant for the said business, it is found that as rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the landlord, the above decisions would not applicable to the case at hand as such. In any event, the principles of law enunciated in the above cited decisions are also taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 25. The Courts below have, on the basis of the materials placed by the respective parties, considered the issues threadbare and found that the requirement of the landlord-firm is genuine and bona fide. In such view of the matter, it is found that the findings and conclusion of the Courts below for ordering eviction of the tenants from the property concerned seems to be made on the basis of the materials placed in the matter and on a consideration of the same in the right perspective. When such is the position, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the landlord, this Court sitting in revision jurisdiction cannot be required to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to different finding of facts and the revisional power not being equivalent to the Appellate Court power, according to the learned counsel appearing for the landlord, unless the findings and conclusion of the Courts below are perverse or illegal per se, the Court sitting in the revisional jurisdiction should be hesitant to interfere with the same and in this connection, strong reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in 2014-4-L.W.753 [Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vs. Dilbahar Singh] and 2016 (2) CTC 292 [Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others vs. M.Chinniyan and others]. The above position of law is not in dispute and the same is also taken into consideration by this Court. 26. In view of the foregoing reasons, as rightly determined by the Courts below, I hold that the landlord-firm is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenants from the property concerned on the ground of owner's occupation for the purpose of starting its business. Accordingly, Point No.I is answered in favour of the landlord and against the tenants. POINT NO.II: 27. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21.04.2017, made in R.C.A.No.6 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Tuticorin, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 02.01.2012, made in R.C.O.P.No.36 of 2009, on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin are confirmed and thereby the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.