Holding

Section 10(3)(a)(iii) applies where the landlord’s need for additional accommodation is for a purpose different from the portion he occupies, and therefore the landlady’s eviction petition was maintainable under that provision.

Summary

The landlady, who occupied a portion of a building for residential use, leased another portion to a tenant for non‑residential purposes. She sought eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to start her son’s car‑air‑conditioning business. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority allowed the eviction, but the High Court set it aside, holding that the landlady could only invoke Section 10(3)(c) because she occupied part of the same building. The Supreme Court examined the statutory language and held that Section 10(3)(c) applies only when the landlord’s additional accommodation requirement is for the same purpose as the part he occupies, which was not the case here. Consequently, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) was applicable and the High Court’s decision was reversed. The appeal was allowed, restoring the eviction order with a four‑month period for the tenant to vacate and pay arrears.

Issues considered

Whether the landlady’s eviction suit should be filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) or Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Whether the requirement of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) must be for the same purpose as the landlord’s occupied portion of the building.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960s. 10(3)(a)(iii), s. 10(3)(c)

Subjects

Rent ControlEvictionLandlord‑tenantAdditional accommodationResidential purposeNon‑residential purposeTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) ActSection 10(3)(a)(iii)Section 10(3)(c)Supreme Court of India

Judgment

KANNIAMMAL A
v.
CHELLARAM

APRIL 12, 2002

[R.C. LAHOTI AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction:

Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections
10(3)(a)(iil) and J0(3)(c)-Eviction-Grounds under the provisions- C
Applicability of-landlady occupying one portion of the tenanted building-
Nature of user of leased property corresponded to the nature of additional
requirement of Landlady-Held, Section J0(3)(a)(iil) was applicable and not
Section I0(3)(c)-Section J0(3)(c) does not require that the nature of the
requirement of the landlord and the nature of the user of the land portion D
• should coalesce.

Appellant-landlady was in occupation of one part of a building for
residential purpose and had let out another part to the respondent-tenant for

- non-residential purpose.

Appellant-landlady filed eviction suit under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of bomifide
E

requirement for non-residential purpose.

Rent controller allowed the petition holding that the landlady bonafide
• needed the tenancy premises. The Order of Rent Controller was upheld in F
appeal.

In Revision Petition High Court held that the eviction was liable to be

-
set aside as the application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of tt.e Act was not
maintainable. Since the landlady was occupying part of the same building in
which the tenancy premises was situated, she could have sought eviction only G
under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Review against the order of High Court
was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

1141
H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A HELD: J. The facts set out in the application for an order for recovery
of possession filed by the landlady attract applicability of Section 10(3)(a)(iii)
of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The averments
have been found substantia.ted entitling the landlady for an order under
Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The High Court has clearly erred in setting aside the
B orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. (1146-B]

2.1. The phraseology employed by the Legislature in framing Section
10(3)(c) and the use of non-obstante clause therein make it clear that Section
10(3)(c) overrides the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii). The latter
provisions, i.e. l0(3)(a)(i) and (iii) have two in-built restrictions, viz. the
C landlord seeking eviction of a tenant thereunder 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 .. The use of the ·wards "requires additional accommodation", as
qualifying "for residential purpose or for purpose of a business which he is
carrying on" indicates that under Section 10(3)(c) the requirement for
D additional accommodation must be for the same purpose for which the part
of the building in occupation of the landlord is being used. It is not the
requirement of Section 10(3)(c) that the nature of the requirement of the
landlord and the nature of the user of the leased portion by the tenant should
coalesce. [ll45-R-D, Fl

E Shri Balaganesan Metals v. MN Shanmugham Chetty and Ors., (1987] 2
sec 707, referred to.
2.2. Section 10(3)(c) would not cover the present case where the landlady
is occupying the not-leased-out portion of the building for residential purpose
F and the requirement for additional accommodations in another part of the,
building is for a non-residential purpose. The appellant-landlady rightly did
not seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(c) and the High Court is
not right in forming an opinion that the_ landlady could have maintained the

G
application for eviction only under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
. [1145-G-H; 1146-A[

Civil Appeal Nos. 2657-
--
2658 of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2000/23 .4.200 I of the
Chennai High Court in C.R.P. No. 2093, C.M.P. No. 11456/2000, R.A. No.
H 25 of 2001.
KANNIAMMALv. CHELLARAM [R.C. LAHOTI,J.J 1143

M.B. Rama Subba Raju, V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan and S. Srinivasan A
for the Appellant.

S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Srikala and S.R. Setia for the Respondents.·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted

The suit property is a building described as door No.21, 7th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar, Madras-83. It is owned by the landlady-appellant. A portion of
the building is occupied by the appellant alongwith her three sons for the

- residence of the family. Another portion of the same building is held by the C
respondent as tenant for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.
400. The appellant initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant under
Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) by alleging that her third son
Venkatesh required the premises in occupation of tenant for commencing his D
own business of car air-conditioning. The Rent Controller directed the tenant-
respondent to be evicted. The order of the Rent Controller was upheld in
appeal. However, the same has been set aside by the High Court in the
revision preferred by the tenant. The landlady sought for a review which was
declined by the High Court. The aggrieved landlady has filed these appeals
~~w~ E
The Rent Controller has held that Venkatesh, the third son of the
appellant, is having a Diploma in Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration and has
also undergone training in automobile air-conditioning. He has, thus,
experience to run a workshop in air-conditioning of cars. The landlady bona
fide needs the tenancy premises for the business of her son and for that F
purpose she is not in possession of any other non-residential building of her
own. This finding has been upheld in appeal as also in revision by the High
Court. However, the High Court formed an opinion that inasmuch as the
landlady was occupying a part of the same building in which tenancy premises
are situated, she could have sought for eviction of the tenant only under G
Section I 0(3) (c) of the Act. But as the landlady had filed the petition seeking
eviction under Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act, it was not maintainable and,
therefore, the order of .eviction was liable to be set aside.

The short question which arises for decision in these appeals is whether
on the facts as found proved, the applicability of Section 10(3) (c) was H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A attracted and, therefore, availability of Section 10(3) (a) (iii) as a ground for
eviction was excluded for the appellant landlady.

The relevant part of Section 10 of the Act reads as under:-

"10(3) (a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d),
B apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the
landlord in possession of the building.

(i) in case it is a residential building, if the landlord requires
it for his own occupation or for the occupation of any
member of his family and if he or any member of his
c family is not occupying a residential building of his own
in the city, town or village concerned;

(ii) xxx xxx xxx
-
(iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, ifthe landlord
or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes
D
of a business which he or any. member of his family is
carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or
village concerned which is his own:

(b) xxx xxx xxx
E (c) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether
residential or non-residential, 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
F 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:

Provided that, in the case of an application under clause
(c) , the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied
that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting
.-
G
it will outweigh the advantage of the landlord:

Provided further that the Controller may give the tenan!
a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the
building and may extend such time so as not to exceed three
H months in the aggregate."
...,
KANNIAMMAL v. CHELLARAM [R.C. LAHOTI, J.} 1145
Section 10(3) (c) came up for the consideration of this Court in Shri A
Balaganesan Metals v. MN. Shanmugham Chetty and Ors., [1987] 2 SCC
707. The provision was dealt with in-depth, analysed and made clear. This
Court held that Clause (c) makes provision enabling a landlord to seek the
eviction of any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining
part of the building for residential or non-residential purposes for satisfying
the additional need of the landlord irrespective of whether the need is for B
residential or business purpose. The phraseology employed by the Legislature
in framing Section 10(3) (c) and the use of non obstante clause therein make
it clear that Section 10(3) (c) overrides the provisions of Section 10(3) (a) (i)
and (iii). The latter provisions, i.e. 10(3) (a) (i) and (iii) have two in-built
restrictions, viz. the landlord seeking eviction of a tenant thereunder should c
~
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. The use of the words "requires additional
accommodation", as qualifying "for residential purpose or for purpose of a
business which he is carrying on" indicates that under Section 10(3) (c) the
requirement for additional accommodation must be for the same purpose for D
-. which the part of the building in occupation of the landlord is being used. If
a landlord is occupying only a part of a residential building he may seek
ejecnnent of tenant for his requirement of additional accommodation for
residential purpose though the tenancy premises are being used by tenant for
non-residential purpose. Similarly, a landlord who is occupying ·only a part
E
of a building for non-residential purpose may have the tenant evicted if he
requires additional accommodation for non-residential purpose it being
immaterial that the tenant is occupying a part of the premises for residential
purpose. Since the requirement of additional accommodation by the landlord
is with reference to the manner of his user of that part of the building which
is in his occupation it is the nature of that requirement that should prevail F
over the manner of user of the tenant of the portion leased out to him. In
other words, the need for additional accommodation is for extending the user
of the building by the landlord to the leased portion for the same purpose for
which the portion not leased out is being used. It is not the requirement of
Section 10(3) (c) that the nature of the requirement of the landlord and the
nature of the user of the leased portion by the tenant should coalesce. That
G

-
being the position of law, Section 10(3) (c) would not cover the present case
where the landlady is occupying the not leased out portion of the building for
residential purpose and the requirement for additional accommodation in
another part of the building is for a non-residential purpose.The appellant-
landlady rightly did not seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3) (c) H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A and the High Court is not right in forming an opinion that the landlady could
have maintained the application for eviction only under Section 10(3) (c) of
the Act.

The facts set out in the application for an order for recovery of possession
filed by the landlady attract applicability of Section 10(3) (a) (iii) .The
B averments have been found substantiated entitling the landlady for an order
under Section 10(3) (a) (iii) .The High Court has clearly erred in setting aside
the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.

The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court are
set aside and the order of the Rent Controller, as maintained by the appellate
C authority, is restored. However, the respondent is allowed four months' time
from today for vacating the premises and putting the landlady in possession
of the tenancy premises subject to his clearing all th·e arrears of rent and
filing an usual undertaking within four weeks from today to deliver vacant
and peaceful possession over the tenancy premises to the landlady. The
D respondent shall bear his costs and also of the appellant throughout.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed.

--