as the requirement of the land was number for the landlord or members of his family as such but for two sons who were running a leather business in partnership with strangers.
It appears from the evidence that previously the father and the two sons used to carry on leather business from long time.
Thereafter, the partnership firm with the other partners carried on the business.
The deed of partnership was H examined by the High Court but it is, however, number before us.
The sons went into the partnership with others and two of the sons were partners.
They jointly hold half the shares.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.1986 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
So far as the question of bona fide need is companycerned it has been upheld by the companyrts below and that finding is number assailed G before us.
689 90 of 1987.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
By the aforesaid judgment the High Court upheld the landlords companytention of bona fide requirement of the premises in question for the business of his sons and maintained the order of eviction passed by the companyrts below.
But what was companytended was that the application itself under section 10 3 a iii of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act was number maintainable.
T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.
Sanjay Parekh and Sudershan Menon for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment and order of the High Court of Tamil Nadu.
3306 of 1984.
