P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of a non-residential building in China Bazaar Road, and the respondent is his tenant. He applied to the Rent Controller, for an order of eviction on the ground that he required it for the purpose of carrying on his business as a diamond merchant. The respondent inter alia contended that the petitioner was in occupation of a building in. Neelakanta Mehta Street, Thyagarayanagar, where he was carrying on his business; and therefore he was not entitled to the relief he sought. The Second Additional Rent Controller, on the evidence, found that the petitioner was in occupation of a portion of a residential house in Thyagarayanagar, and that he bona fide' required the premises for his own business. He found, therefore, that the petitioner was not occupying a non-residential building for the purpose of the business which he was carrying on, and in accordance with Section 7(3)(a)(ii) of Madras Act. XV of 1946 he directed the respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the premises. The respondent appealed to the Court-of Small Causes at Madras.. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes allowed the appeal and dismissed. the petitioner's application for eviction.
2. The only ground for his decision which appears from his order is that it was clear from the petition itself that the petitioner was doing his diamond business in. No. 32, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Thyagarayanagar, and though it was a rented building, he was entitled to maintain his possession of the same till he was evicted in due course of law. The learned Judge evidently fell into an error in assuming; that if the petitioner was able to carry on his business at any place--it did not matter where-he would not be entitled to recover possession of his non-residential building to carry on his own business. He overlooked the essential condition laid dawn in Section 7(3)(a)(ii) which must be. satisfied before the landlord can be denied his right to get back possession of his own building, namely, that he was occupying for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on in a non-residential building which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled. The Rent Controller, on the evidence, expressly found that the petitioner was in occupation of a portion of a residential building and-therefore this condition was not satisfied. The learned Judge did not upset this finding. He appears to have been under the impression that if the petitioner was in occupation of any building in which he was able to carry on business, his petition must be dismissed. This is an obvious error of law apparent on the face of the record.
3. Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar for the respondent invited our attention to Ismail Dada v. Bai Zuleikabai I.L.R. (1944) Bom. 361. Tompkin v. Rogers 90 L.J. K.B. 591 and another Irish case. None of these decisions is of any assistance, as those decisions turn on the construction of enacments not in part materia and on facts not exactly similar to the facts in the present case. There is nothing in these decisions inconsistent with the view which we are inclined to take, namely, that the fact that a landlord is in occupation of a residential building in which he is carrying on his business is not sufficient to prevent him from obtaining possession of a non-residential building of his own for carrying on his own business under Section 7(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. In this view, it is un-necessary to deal with another question raised by Mr. Radhakrishnayya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that even assuming that 32, Neelakanta Mehta Street, was a non-residential building, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be ' entitled to its possession.
4. The order of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is therefore quashed'. The rule nisi will be made absolute. The respondent will have time till 4th May, 1949. to put the landlord in possession of the building. The petitioner will get the costs of this application from the respondent.