1987 (4) TMI 479 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of the statutes - Seeking eviction of the appellant only under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(c) - recovery of possession of the ground floor - Comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant - Entitlement to recover possession of non-residential premises for their residential requirements - requirement of additional accommodation - HELD THAT - There are several reasons which persuade us to take this view. In the first place it has to be noted that Section 10(3)(c) stands on a different footing from Section 10(3)(a)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii). It is not a case of a landlord not occupying a residential or non-residential building of his own but a case of a landlord occupying a part of a residential or non-residential building of his own and putting it to such user as deemed fit by him. Since the requirement of additional accommodation by the landlord is with reference to the manner of his user of that part of the building which is in his occupation it is the nature of that requirement that should prevail over the manner of user of the tenant of the portion leased out to him. It is therefore that the Legislature has provided Section 10(3)(c) in its present form so that a landlord bona fide requiring additional accommodation is not confronted with a permanently irremediable situation. In its anxiety that Section 10(3)(c) should fully serve the purpose for which it has been enacted the Legislature has also added the non obstante clause. Having regard to the object of Section 10(3)(c) and the terms in which it is worded there is warrant and justification for holding that the non obstante clause has been provided to have overriding effect over both the restrictions placed by Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) viz. landlord seeking eviction of a tenant should not be occupying a building of his own and secondly the nature of user of the leased property by the tenant must correspond to the nature of the requirement of the landlord. In construing Section 10(3)(c) it is pertinent to note that the words used are any tenant and not a tenant who can be called upon to vacate the portion in his occupation. To sum up the requirement of additional accommodation pertains to the need of the landlord and the manner of user of the portion of the building already in his occupation and consequently the bona fides of his requirement will outweigh all the restrictions imposed by Section 10(3)(a) i.e. nature of the building. nature of user of the leased portion by the tenant etc. Even so the Legislature has taken care to safeguard the interests of the tenant by means of the provisos to the sub-clause. The first proviso enjoins the Controller to balance the interests of the landlord and the tenant and to refuse eviction if the hardship caused to the tenant will outweight the advantage to the landlord by reason of the eviction. The second proviso empowers the Controller to grant adequate time to the tenant up to a maximum of three months to vacate the building and secure accommodation elsewhere. It. therefore. follows that once a landlord is able to satisfy the Controller that he is bona fide in need of additional accommodation for residential or non-residential purposes and that the advantage derived by him by an order of eviction will outweigh the hardship caused to the tenant then he is entitled to an order of eviction irrespective of any other consideration. In the result we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly it will stand dismissed. Mr. Sampath learned counsel for the appellant made a request that in the event of the appeal being dismissed the appellant should be given sufficiently long time to secure another godown and shift his stock of goods to that place. Mr. Padmanabhan learned counsel for the respondents very fairly stated that the respondents are agreeable to give time to the appellant till 31.12.87 to vacate the leased portion. Accordingly we order that in spite of the dismissal of the appeal the appellant will have time till 31.12.87 to vacate the ground floor premises in his occupation and deliver peaceful and vacant possession to the respondents subject however to the appellant filing an under-taking in the usual terms in this behalf within 4 weeks from today failing which the respondents will be entitled to recover possession of the building forthwith. The parties will bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 10(3)(a)(i) vs. Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
2. Whether eviction under Section 10(3)(c) can be sought for residential purposes when the premises are used for non-residential purposes.
3. Comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant.
4. High Court's interference with the findings of the Appellate Authority under Section 25 of the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 10(3)(a)(i) vs. Section 10(3)(c)
The appellant contended that the ground floor constitutes a separate building u/s 2(2) of the Act, and thus, eviction should be sought u/s 10(3)(a)(i) and not u/s 10(3)(c). The Court held that the entire building should be viewed as one integral unit, not as disintegrated parts, under Section 10(3)(c). The legislature intended for the entire building, irrespective of portions occupied by the landlord and tenants, to be treated as one unit for eviction purposes.

Issue 2: Eviction for Residential Purposes under Section 10(3)(c)
The appellant argued that eviction u/s 10(3)(c) could only be sought for non-residential purposes. The Court clarified that Section 10(3)(c) allows a landlord occupying part of a building to seek additional accommodation for either residential or business purposes, irrespective of the tenant's use of the premises. The legislative intent was to provide relief for genuine additional accommodation needs of the landlord, overriding the restrictions in Section 10(3)(a).

Issue 3: Comparative Hardship
The Rent Controller's finding of comparative hardship in favor of the respondents was upheld. The High Court noted that the Appellate Authority failed to consider relevant materials and applied incorrect tests, justifying the High Court's interference. The Court emphasized balancing the interests of both landlord and tenant, with the proviso ensuring the tenant's hardship does not outweigh the landlord's advantage.

Issue 4: High Court's Interference
The High Court's interference with the Appellate Authority's findings was justified as the Appellate Authority had applied wrong tests and ignored unchallenged findings of the Rent Controller. The High Court corrected these manifest errors in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant granted time until 31.12.87 to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the respondents, subject to filing an undertaking within 4 weeks. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.