V. Ratnam, J. - (1.)THE tenants, who had lost in the Courts below, are the petitioners in this civil revision petition which arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in their occupation under Section 10(3)(c) and (d) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973.
(2.)THE premises in the occupation of the petitioner bearing old door No. 9 -1 -108 and new door No. 16 is a portion of building on the western side of the entire building which belongs to the respondent. On 14th May, 1973, the petitioners took a lease of that premises for a period of 3 years for the purpose of running it coffee hotel. The lease had been entered into by the first respondent and on behalf of his brother, the second petitioner, and the rent fixed was Rs. 4,500 per annum and the period of tenancy was three years. The second petitioner is conducting the hotel business and the first petitioner occasionally visits and checks the accounts. On the easter portion of the entire building belonging to the respondent, the respondent is having a javuli business under the name and style of "Jupiter Javuli Hall" as well as a jewellery business under the name of "Thayalu Jewellery Mart Finding it difficult and inconvenient to run both the businesses within an are a of 17' X 12' the respondent wanted the premises in the occupation of the petitioners as additional accommodation in order to conduct the jewellery business and the javuli business separately in a more convenient manner. In addition, the respondent also claimed that there was an intended partition and (sic) of jewellery business to his four sons end the jewellery business lad therefore to be kept separately from the javuli business. In May, 1976, the respondent informed the petitioner that the premises occupied by them is required by him as additional accommodation and that they should vacate after the expiry of the lease on 14th May, 1976, but apart from a mere promise to do so, the petitioners continued to remain in occupation. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice on 14th July 1976, for which a reply was sent by the petitioners admitting the tenancy as well as the quantum of rent, but stating that the respondent was demanding enhanced rent and therefore the demand for vacating the premises was made. The respondent averred that he did not want to let out the building to any third party and that he was even prepared to give an undertaking to that effect, but wanted the premises only for the purpose of separately carrying or the jewellery business from the javuli business. Inasmuch as the petitioners did not surrender possession of the premises in response to the notice issued by the respondent, he filed R.C.O.P. No. 34 of 1976 under Section 10(3)(c) and (d) praying for an order for eviction.
The petitioners resisted that application contending that there is no contractual tenancy but that they were only statutory tenants. They claimed that they have been running the hotel business as tenants from. 14th May, 1964, and periodically there has been an enhancement of rent. While admitting that the rent was fixed at Rs. 4,500 from 14th August, 1973, the petitioners claimed that the respondent wanted enhancement of the rent to Rs. 6,000 per annum from 15th May, 1976, and therefore, tie petitioner tendered the amount, but it was refused by the respondent. An attempt by the petitioners to send that amount by bank draft also failed, but, in the meanwhile, the respondent had caused a notice to be sent on 14th. July, 1976, which according to the petitioners, discloses the mala fide character of the respondents. Owing to the refusal of the respondent to receive the rent, the petitioners had to file R.C.O.P. No. 33 of 1976 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for deposit of the rent. According to the petitioners, the javuliand jewellery businesses are being done in the same premises for several years and even before the petitioners came into possession of the premises in question, it was so. It was further averred by the petitioners that the respondent had three more buildings on the east let to other persons all of which were situate in a very important locality whereas the building in the occupation of the petitioners is behind the building in which the jewellery business is done with an independent access on the western side. The requirement of the respondent on the ground of additional accommodation was denied. The petitioners stated that both the businesses could be run in the same premises by the respondent as was being done for the last 20 years. In the hotel business run by the petitioners, it was claimed that there was quite a number of employees subject to the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act and it was not possible to get a similar building or any building for that matter in the locality to run a hotel business. It was therefore the case of the petitioners that the hardship resulting to them by ordering eviction would outweigh the advantage to the landlord and therefore, eviction should not be ordered.

(3.)THE petitioners, as stated above, had also filed R.G.O.P. No. 33 of 1976 under Section 8(5) for depositing the rent. In the counter filed by the respondent, the case of the petitioners that there was a demand for enhanced rent was denied. It was further stated that since there is no renewal of tenancy after 14th May, 1976, the petitioners are persons holding over and therefore, not entitled to deposit any rent and that too for an aggregate period of one year. Both the applications R.C.O.P. No. 34 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein for eviction and the deposit application filed by the petitioners herein in R C O P. No. 33 of 1976 were heard together and evidence was recorded in R C O P No. 34 of 1976. In dealing with the requirement of the respondent of the premises in the Occupation of the petitioners by way of additional accommodation, the learned Rent Controller held that the respondent bona fide required the building as additional accommodation for jewellery business. The learned Rent Controller further found that he was not satisfied that the hardship caused to the petitioners should outweigh the advantage to the landlord. On these findings R C O P. No. 34 of 1976 was allowed directing the petitioners to vacate the premises and R.C O P. No. 33 of 1976 was dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners herein preferred C. M.A. No. 67 of 1977 against the order of eviction and the first petitioner preferred an appeal in C M A. No. 83 of 1973 against the dismissal of R.C.O. P. No. 33 of 1976. The appellate authority (Sub -Judge, Dindigul) held that the requirement of the respondent of the premises in the occupation of the petitioners as additional accommodation is bona fide and that the petitioners are liable to be evicted. On the question of relative hard -ship, the appellate authority referred to the finding of the Rent Controller that the hardship caused to the tenant would not outweigh the advantage to the landlord though he did not record any separate finding on this aspect. However, ultimately, the order of eviction was confirmed and that C M.A. was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred C R P. No. 2495 of 1978 against the order of eviction confirmed in C.M.A. No. 67 of 1977. While disposing of that civil revision petition, Sathiadev, J., stated that there is a duty on the part of the appellate authority to consider and ascertain the relative hardship and advantage as per the proviso to Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and inasmuch as the appellate authority had not adverted to this vital aspect, it must be considered by the appellate authority and for this purpose, the matter was remitted giving liberty to the parties to adduce fresh evidence limited to this aspect. After the remit order, the appellate authority has found, that the hardship likely to be caused to the petitioners will not outweigh the advantage to the respondent and had confirmed the order of eviction. It is this order that is sought to be revised by the tenants in this civil revision petition.