9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Analysis of Judgment: 1. Interpretation of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act: The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, ruling that the portion leased out for non-residential purposes was not a separate and distinct unit, entitling the landlord to seek eviction. Reference was made to the decision in Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty, where the section was analyzed and explained. The Court rejected the argument that the residential and non-residential parts should be treated as separate units, emphasizing that in this case, they did not warrant such treatment as the portion was only a small part of the residential building. 2. Interpretation of the phrase "as the case may be": The Court dismissed the contention that the expression "as the case may be" in the section was not properly appreciated. It was clarified that this phrase refers to the situation where there are separate and distinct units, and the concept of need will apply accordingly. The Court cited relevant legal authorities to explain the meaning of this expression and concluded that it had been properly construed in the judgment. 3. Consideration of comparative hardship: The appellant's argument regarding comparative hardship was rejected by the Court. It was noted that the appellant, an affluent businessman, could easily find alternative accommodation, while the respondents had no other residential house and would face immense hardship if not allowed to occupy the additional portion in their house. The Court emphasized that there was no question of balance of convenience and ultimately dismissed the appeal, stating that there would be no order as to costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, emphasizing that the portion leased out for non-residential purposes was not a separate unit. The Court also clarified the interpretation of the phrase "as the case may be" and rejected the argument regarding comparative hardship, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
|
