Shri Balaganesan Metals vs Shri M.N. Shanmugham Chetty & Ors on 23 April, 1987
Section 10(3)(c) came up for the consideration of this Court in
Shri Balaganesan Metals Vs. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty & 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 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 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 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
ejectment 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 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 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 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) 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.