9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Eviction under Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; Consideration of proviso under clause (e) of Section 10(3) regarding hardship to tenant outweighing landlord's advantage. Eviction under Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b): The respondent, as the landlord, filed petitions for eviction of tenants based on Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the petitions, but the appellate authority reversed this decision. The High Court summarily dismissed a revision petition by one tenant, leading to a special leave petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the grounds for eviction under both sections were distinct and mutually exclusive, setting aside the eviction order and remitting the matter for reconsideration. The appellate authority later allowed some appeals while dismissing others. The High Court, in a common judgment, allowed the respondent's revision petitions and dismissed those of the appellants. However, the High Court failed to consider the proviso under clause (e) of Section 10(3), which mandates rejection of an application if the tenant's hardship outweighs the landlord's advantage. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, emphasizing the mandatory consideration of the proviso and the need for expeditious resolution within six months. Consideration of proviso under clause (e) of Section 10(3): The High Court's failure to consider the proviso under clause (e) of Section 10(3) regarding the balance between tenant hardship and landlord advantage was a crucial oversight. The Supreme Court highlighted the mandatory nature of this proviso, especially in cases involving the requirement of additional accommodation by the landlord. The Court noted that the respondent had taken possession of certain premises and initiated eviction proceedings against another tenant, underscoring the importance of weighing tenant hardship against landlord advantage. Due to the High Court's omission in considering this proviso, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and directed the matter to be reconsidered, stressing the necessity for adherence to the legal provisions and a prompt resolution within six months.
|
