The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 27 April, 1979
In this case, the petitioner is seeking possession of the building on the ground that the building is required for the occupation of its employees and not for its own occupation. Therefore, the Corporation cannot be taken to require the premises for its purposes so as to enable it to invoke Section 10(3)(b) of the Act for getting possession of the building from the tenants. Therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be said to have remedy under Section 10(3)(b). Ananthanarayanan, C.J., has taken a similar view in Bhakthavatsalu Chetty v. Natesa Achari (1968) 81 L.W. 13. In that case, a building was owned by a charitable trust. That building was occupied by a tenant. The trust filed an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(b) on the ground that the building was required for letting it out as a Kalyana Mandapam with a view to get a higher income to the trust. The learned Chief Justice held that so long as the celebration of marriages in a mandapam is not one of the objects for which the trust was founded, that the object of establishing a Kalyana Mandapam cannot be said to be for the purpose of the trust and that therefore the trust cannot be taken to require the building for its own use.