TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however refused to renew the lease and filed a suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground she bona fide. required the ground floor also for her residential use. The suit did not meet with success. Unnamalai Ammal bequeathed the property to her son-in-law and grand son who are the respondents herein. As legatees of the premises the respondents filed a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act praying for eviction of the appellant on the ground they bona fide required additional accommodation for their residential needs. The Rent Controller upheld their claim, after finding the relevant factors of bona fide need and comparative hardship in their favour and ordered eviction. On appeal by the appellant, the Appellant Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and further held that the respondent were not entitled to recover possession of non-residential premises for their residential requirements and dismissed the petition for eviction. On further revision to the High Court by the respondents Remaprasada Rao, C.J. set aside the order of the Appellant Authority and resorted the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The aggrieved tenant has preferred th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of another contention of the appellant at this juncture itself which had found favour with the Appellate Authority. The contention was that with the death of Unnamalai Ammal the family had become smaller and hence there was no need for additional accommodation. This argument overlooks the fact that additional accommodation is sought for because of the difficulty experienced by the first respondent in climbing the stairs in his old age and the need for the second respondent's daughter, growing in years, to have a room all for herself for keeping her books and reading at home. We will now proceed to consider the legal contentions of the appellant in seriatim. The first and foremost contention was that under the Act the ground floor constitutes a separate building and as such the respondents can seek recovery of possession of the ground floor only under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and not under Section 10(3)(c). For dealing with this contention, the relevant provisions of the Act need setting out. Section 2 which is the definition Section reads as under:- Definitions:In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-- (2) building means any building or hut or part of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortion or portions of the building where it is not necessary to treat the entire building as one Whole and inseparable unit. A limitation on the definition has been placed by the Legislature itself by providing that the application of the definition is subject to the contextual position. Therefore, it follows that where the context warrants the entire building being construed as one integral unit, it would be inappropriate to view the building as consisting of several disintegerated units and not as one integerated structure. Secondly there is vast difference between the words residential building and non-residential building used in Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) on the one hand and Section 10(3)(c) on the other. While Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) refer to a building only as residential or non-residential Section 10(3)(c) refers to a landlord occupying a pan of a building, 'whether residential or non-residential. (Emphasis supplied). Further-more, Section 10(3)(c) states that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order of eviction being passed against the tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining pan of the building (Emphasis supplied). If as con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof. Obviously the second proviso has been made to facilitate the tenant to find alternate residential or non-residential accommodation elsewhere, since the landlord who is already in possession of a portion of the building can put up with the hardship of inadequate accommodation for a period of three months at the most. The above analytical consideration of the relevant provisions bring out clearly the fallacy contained in and the untenability of the contention that the ground floor occupied by the appellant is a distinct and separate unit and as such the respondents cannot seek his eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. This aspect of the matter has been considered in varying degrees in the following decisions and interpreted in accordance with our conclusion; vide Saraswathi Sriraman v.P.C.R. Chetty's Charities, [1972] 2 M.L.J. 515; Mohammed Jarfar v. Palaniappa Chettiar, [1964] 1 M.L.J. 112 and Chellammal v. Accommodation Controller, [1967] 2 M.L.J. 453. Even the Division Bench ruling relied on by Mr. Sampath concedes this position and has observed as follows: Therefore, if the context in a particular provision requires that the word building should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional accommodation for non-residential purposes only if the building is a non-residential one. The Division Bench has further taken the view that the non obstante clause is only to entitle a landlord to seek eviction even when he is in possession of a portion of a building .belonging to him and nothing more. In a later decision G.N. Rajaram v. Mukunthu N. Venkatarama Iyer. MLJ 1985(2) 173 the Division Bench ruling has been followed and eviction was ordered of a tenant occupying a room in the ground floor of a residential building for his business purposes. On the other hand a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Parasuramaiah v. Lakshmamma, AIR 1965 220 has held that if a landlord satisfies the Controller that he wants additional accommodation in the same building for his residential or non-residential requirements then notwithstanding the user to which the tenant was putting the leased portion. the landord is entitled to an order of eviction so that he can re-adjust the additional accommodation in the manner convenient to him and it is not necessary that the additional accommodation sought for should be used by the landlord for the same purpose for which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dential building may notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. If clause (3) is construed in this manner there can be no scope for a contention that a landlord cab seek additional accommodation for residence only if the building is a residential one and likewise he can seek additional accommodation for business purposes only if the building is a nonresidential one. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The word any has the following meaning:- Some; one out of many; an indefinite number. One indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity. Word any has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate all or every as well as some or one and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject matter of the statute. It is often synonymous with either , every or all . Its generality may be restricted by context; (Black's Law Dictionary; Fifth Edition). Unless the legislature had intended that both classes of tenants can be asked to vacate by the Rent Controller for providing the. landlord additional accommodation. be it for residential or non-residential purposes. it woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he landlord by reason of the evicton. The second proviso empowers the Controller to grant adequate time to the tenant upto a maximum of three months to vacate the building and secure accommodation elsewhere. It. there.fore. 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 light of our conclusion we approve the ratio in K. Prasuramaiah v. Lakshmamma, (supra) and disapprove the ratio in Thirupathy v. Kanta Rao. (supra). The third and fourth question posed for consideration do not present any difficulty. The Rent Controller has gone into the question of comparative hardship and rendered a finding in favour of the respondents. The High Court has observed that the Appellate Authority. while reversing the order. has failed to take due note of relevant materials placed by the respondents. The High Court has, therefore, held that the Appellate Authority's findings have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
