Tenaant can be evicted from part of building.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the Order in R.C.A.No.246 of 1998 dated 07.12.2001 on the file of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1825 of 1995 dated 29.01.1998 on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

Tenant is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the order of eviction passed on 07.12.2001 in R.C.A.No.246 of 1998 on the file of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, which reversed the dismissal order dated 29.01.1998 of R.C.O.P.No.1825 of 1995 that was filed for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, this revision petition has been filed.

2. The tenament is measuring 7 feet x 19 feet in the ground floor of premises No.442, Mint Street, Chennai-79, which was let out for non-residential purpose to the revision petitioner / tenant.

3. In one portion of the same building, the respondent/ landlady is having residence. She wanted the tenaments for owner's occupation inasmuch as she wanted to shift the goldsmith business of his sons Damodaran and Ganesan from the rented shop at No.67, Edapalayam Street, Madras. There was also a goldsmith licence issued by the competent authority in favour of the two sons of the respondent/ landlady. It was found that the landlady does not own any other premises except the petition mentioned one. There is also no need for any threat of eviction to the sons of landlady from their rented premises at Edapalayam Street, Madras. Even without the threat, a landlady can bona fide apply for owner's occupation. It is not also as if the tenant can dictate to the landlady to select a particular portion. On the other hand, the landlady can choose the portion, for which she wants eviction.

4. The only required element is that her requirement is bona fide and that she had no other premises available in the City. In this particular case, the bona fides of the requirement, namely, that the sons of the respondent/ landlady are to be accommodated for their carrying on business of goldsmith, cannot be questioned in view of the fact that they have produced the licence therefor by the competent authority. It is also not the case that the landlady has some other portion available in the City.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has submitted that the petition should have been filed under section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. According to him, since the building is the same where landlady resides in one portion and required other portion for non-residential purpose that should be claimed only by way of additional accommodation under section 10(3)(c) and not for owner's occupation under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

6. In this connection, reliance was placed upon the decision SHRI BALAGANESAN METALS ..vs.. M.N.SHANMUGAM CHETTY AND OTHERS reported AIR 1987 SC 1668, wherein the following observation was made.

"15. Since S.10(3)(c) provides for both situations viz., a landlord occupying a part of a building which is residential or non-residential, the sub-clause can be read separately so as to have reference exclusively to a residential building or a non-residential building.....

The proper way of distinctively viewing the section should be as under:

A landlord who is occupying only a part of a residential building may notwithstanding anything contained in Cl.(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 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.

A landlord who is occupying only a part of a non-residential building may notwithstanding anything