As per case facts, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10 (3) (a) (3) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the tenant ... from a non-residential building. The landlord stated that he carried on business in a rented non-residential building, not his own, and faced a threat of eviction, and that he did not occupy any building of his own for business. The Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court had all made and affirmed the eviction order. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the original landlord died. His sons, who were brought on record as legal representatives, became co-owners of both the petition non-residential building and another non-residential building where the partnership business had shifted. The question arose whether the sons of the deceased landlord, now co-owners of a non-residential building where their partnership business was carried on, could still be regarded as landlords "not occupying a non-residential building in the city which is their own" to claim the benefit of the ground of eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (3) of the Act. Finally, the Supreme Court held that a non-residential building occupied by a landlord, of which he is a co-owner, is considered "his own" for the purpose of Section 10 (3) (a) (3). Since the respondents became co-owners of another non-residential building where they were carrying on business, they were disentitled from retaining the benefit of the eviction order. The Court affirmed its power under Article 136 to take cognizance of subsequent events and developments during an appeal to mould the relief sought, especially when circumstances warrant, and thus set aside the eviction order.