Holding

The leased portion is not a separate and distinct unit; therefore, the landlord is entitled to evict under s.10(3)(c), and the phrase "as the case may be" has no bearing where no distinct unit exists.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a room in the front portion of a residential building for non‑residential purposes. The landlord sought eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming the need for additional residential accommodation due to family marriages. The High Court ordered eviction, and the tenant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the leased portion constituted a "separate and distinct unit" as required by the statute, interpreted the phrase "as the case may be," and considered the comparative hardship of the parties. It held that the room was not a separate unit, that "as the case may be" simply means "as the situation may be" and applies only when distinct units exist, and that the landlord’s need outweighed any hardship to the tenant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the portion leased for non‑residential use qualifies as a separate and distinct unit under s.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
The meaning and applicability of the expression "as the case may be" in s.10(3)(c).
Whether the comparative hardship of the tenant versus the landlord should affect the eviction order.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

evictionleaseresidential accommodationseparate and distinct unitcomparative hardshipTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) ActSection 10(3)(c)landlord-tenant

Judgment

.l
A SUBRAMANIAM SHANMUGHAM
v.
M.L. RAJENDRAN & ORS.

AUGUST 28, 1987

B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.)

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960--S. J.
10(3)(c)-A room in a residential building leased out for non-resi-
dential purposes-Wherher a separate and dis1inct unit--Landlord
whether entitled to seek eviction for residential purpose-Comparative
C h'lrdship-Assessment of.

Words and Phrases: Expression "as the case may be"-Meaning
of-S. 10(3)(c)-Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rem Control) Act,
1960.

D The appellant was sought to be evicted under s. 10(3)(c) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 from a room )r
leased out to him for non-residential purposes in a residential building.
The landlord needed additional accommodation for residential pur-
poses due to marriages in the family. The High Court ordered eviction.

In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellant
E that the portion let out to him was a separate and distinct unit for the 1.
purposes of s. 10(3)(c) of the Act, that the expression 'as the case may ,,,.
be' in the section has not been properly construed, and that the require-
ment and comparative hardship of the parties were not properly
appreciated. )

F Dismissing the appeal the Court,

HELD: 1. A building may consist of separate parts if the context
so warrants. In the instant case, the context and the user did not war-
rant treatment of the portion let out for non-residential user either as a
separate or distinct unit. It was only a small part of the residential
G building and not a separate part. The landlord was, therefore, entitled ~
to seek eviction of the tenant. [1148B]

Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Cherty & Ors.,
(1987] 2 sec 707, referred to, ~

H 2. The meaning of the expression 'as the case may be' in

1146
S. SHANMUGHAM v. M.L. RAJENDRAN {MUKHARJI, J.] 1147

s. 10(3)(c) is what the expression says, i.e., as the situation may be, A
in other words, in case there are separate and distinct units then
concept of need will apply accordingly. Where, however, there is no
such separate and distinct unit, as in the instant case, it has no
significance. [1148E]

Bluston & Bramley Ltd. v. Leigh (Euler and Another, Third B
Partiesl[1950] 2 A.E.R. page 29 at page 35, referred to.
3. The appellant is an affluent businessman and it is not difficult
for him to get alternative accommodation. On the other hand, the
... respondents who have no other residential honse than the one in question
will find it extremely difficult to get residential acccmmodation in the
same locality and as such they will be pot to immense hardship if they C
are not allowed to occupy the additional portion in their house which
has been leased out to the tenant. There is no question of balance of
convenience. [1148FG]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2991
of 1986. D

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.1986 of the Madras
High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 3599 of 1983.

Ms. Shyamala Pappu, Ms. Dhaneshwari and R. Vasudevan for the
.11 Appellant. E

S. Srinivasan for the Respondents.

·'( The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACIIl MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special F
leave from the judgment and order of the High Court on 13th January,
1986 ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the
Act. This is an appeal by the tenant. A room in the front portion of the
}-- building had been leased out to the tenant for non-residential pur-
poses. The landlord resides in the other portion. The landlord needed G
additional accommodation for residential purposes due to marriages in
the family. Was the portion let out as such separate and distinct unit
for the purpose of Section 10{3)(c) of the Act? It was not and as such
the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under section
10(3)(c.) of the Act. It has been so held clearly by this Court in Shri
Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty and Ors., [1987] 2 H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 3 S.C.R.

SCC 707 wherein the section has been analysed and explained. Ms.
A
Shyamala Pappu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
decision needs reconsideration as the residential and the non-
residential part of the building covered as separate units and the re-
quirements of the two separate parts have not been properly assessed
therein. We are unable to accept this criticism. A building may consist 1
B of separate parts if the context so warrants. In the instant case as in
Shri Balaganesan Metal's case the context and the user did not warrant J
treatment of the portion let out for non-residential user either as a ·
separate or distinct unit. It was only a small part of the residential

C
building and not a separate part.
It was secondly submitted that the expression "as the case may
be", in the section has not been properly appreciated. We are unable
to agree. The difference between residential part and. the non-
)
-
residential has been borne in mind by my learned brother in the judg-
ment aforesaid.
Justice Morris in Bluston & Bramley Ltd. v. Leigh (Euler and
D Another, Third Parties), [ 1950) 2 A.E.R. page 29 at page 35 explained )r
that the phrase "as the case may be" meant in the events that have
happened. Our attention was also drawn to the expression "as the case
may be" as appearing in the Words and Phrases Permanent Edition 4
Page No. 596. The meaning of the expression "as the case may be" is
what the expression says, i.e., as the situation may be, in other words (
E in case there are separate and distinct units then concept of need will~
apply accordingly. Where, however, there is no such separate and >
distinct unit, it has no significance. There is no magic in that expres-
sion. The expression "as the case may be" has been properly
construed in the judgment mentioned hereinbefore. r
It was lastly contended that comparative hardship in the instant
F appeal has not been properly considered. It appears that there is
nothing in this point. The appellant is an affluent businessman and it is
not difficult for him to get alternative accommodation. On the other
hand, the respondents have no other residential house than the one in
question will find it extremely difficult to get residential accommoda-
tion in the same locality and as such they will be put to immense ..f
G hardship if they are not allowed to occupy the additional portion in
their house which has been leased out to the tenant. The Court has
observed that there is no question of balance of convenience. In that
view of the matter this appeal must fail and is, therefore, dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
H P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.