9911796707
|
Home
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.
|
