A landlord seeking eviction of a tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, must properly plead and prove the requirement of the premises for his additional accommodation and must also establish that the hardship caused to the tenant by eviction will be outweighed by the advantage to him.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-3-1994 made in R.C.A. No. 17 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 18-8-1992 made in R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 1986 by the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Arakkonam.

2. The original petition for eviction of the tenant has been filed by the landlord on four grounds viz. (1) wilful default in payment of rent, under Section 10(2)(i); (2) for committing acts of waste by the tenant thereby impairing materially the value or utility of the building, under Section 10(2)(iii); (3) the tenant being guilty of such acts which are nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions, under Section 10(2)(v) and (4) requiring additional accommodation by the landlord (who is occupying a part of the building) under Section 10(3)(c), all under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

3. The Rent Controller, rejecting the claim of the landlord on the first three grounds has allowed the petition on the sole ground of requiring the premises for additional accommodation by the landlord. On appeal by the tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has rejected the case of the landlord on the ground of requiring the premises for his personal additional accommodation also and has allowed the appeal, as a result of which, now the landlord has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds, as alleged in the Memorandum of Grounds of Revision.

4. During enquiry before the Rent Controller, the petitioner/landlord has not only examined himself as P. W. 1 but also has marked two documents as Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. On the part of the respondent/tenant, he has examined himself as R. W. 1 and has marked 27 documents as Exs. B.1 to B. 27.

5. Apart from these, two more documents have also been marked as Court Documents Exs. C. 1 and C. 2.

6. The Rent Controller, while discussing the point of requirement of the premises by the landlord for his additional accommodation has remarked that as per the evidence of the landlord, if the middle wall which is in fact separating the residential building in the occupation of the landlord and the shop that is let out in favour of the tenant is removed, he will be having direct access to enter into his house, but instead now he has to go by the other way round viz Manicka Mudali Street, which is narrow and unhygienic and has further opined that if the landlord requires to enjoy the premises belonging to him according to his convenience, the tenant cannot stand in the way. The Rent Controller has justified the contentions of the landlord on this ground especially in view of the fact that there are 14 members in the family of the landlord further rejecting the contentions of the tenant that the premises occupied by him is used for non-residential purposes and that the adjacent property has been used by the landlord admittedly for residential purposes; that there is a regular pathway to gain entry into his residence and the landlord can gain direct access and that the landlord is attempting to evict him on the reasons assigned which are not genuine. Ultimately, the Rent Controller, agreeing with the landlord on the ground of requiring the premises for his additional accommodation, has ordered the eviction of the tenant.

7. Aggrieved, the tenant has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. The learned appellate authority has remarked that the petitioner/landlord has not pleaded that the residential building in his occupation is insufficient for himself and his family to reside; that he has also not clearly stated that the non-residential building is required for his residential purposes; that he has himself admitted that in between both these portions, there is a wall to the width of 41/2

"; that