TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ). In the main building the appellant was running the business of hotel-cum-bar. On the plea that he had made all preparations for starting a jewellery shop and a textile shop and bona fide requires additional accommodation for the proposed business, he filed R.C.P.No.31 of 1983 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises. The ground of bona fide requirement of the appellant for additional accommodation was opposed by the respondent. He averred that he was running a provision shop in the premises which was his sole source of income for his livelihood and the appellant was having other vacant accommodation which he let out to others. The learned Rent Controller recorded the finding that the appellant was not in need of additional accommodation. It was also found that if the respondent was evicted from the premises he would be put to more hardship than the benefit that would be fetched to the appellant. In that view of the matter, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 7th June, 1986. The landlord unsuccessfully assailed the said order before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.39 of 1990. Both, on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if he is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application. The first proviso to sub-section (10) provides an additional ground for rejection of the application under sub-section (8) and, that is, if the Controller is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by ordering his eviction, will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. In the event of granting the application the second proviso comes into operation and empowers the Rent Controller to grant reasonable time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building which may be extended from time to time up to three months. While providing a ground to a landlord to claim additional accommodation for his personal use, possible care has been taken to safeguard the interest of a tenant. There is no controversy in regard to compliance of requirements of (i) and (ii) of sub-section (8) noted above. In hoc requirement (iii), the landlord has to show that he bona fide requires additional accommodation for his personal use. The High Court held that the requirement of the landlord should relate to the same purpose, namely, for expansion of his existing business of hotel-cum-bar and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be useful to refer to in pari materia enactments of other States. In Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 10(3)(c) deals with granting order of eviction on the plea of additional accommodation. It provides that in the case of non-residential building the landlord has to show that he requires the additional accommodation for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on; thus under Andhra Act additional accommodation can be sought for purposes of the business which the landlord is carrying on. So also under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease Rent Control) Act 1960, the additional accommodation for nonresidential purposes can be claimed for purposes of the business which the landlord is carrying on. In Shri Balaganesan Metals vs. Shri M.N.Shanmugham Chetty Ors. [1987 (1) RCR 586], while construing Section (10)(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Act, this Court held that once a landlord has satisfied the Controller that he was 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for special reasons that it will be just and proper to order eviction of tenant from the building in occupation of the tenant. The legislative mandate to the Rent Controller is not to pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and if there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. Thus, it is seen that whereas before passing an order under sub-section (8), the requirement of comparative hardship is to be considered by the Rent Controller and it is only when the hardship that may be caused to the tenant by granting an order in favour of the landlord will outweigh the advantage to the landlord that the Rent Controller has to reject the application. But under sub-section (3) no order of eviction against the tenant can be passed if he is dependent for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
