The central legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord is entitled to eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, and the hardship caused to the tenants by eviction did not outweigh the advantage to the landlord.

1. The tenants are the revision petitioners in all these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The respondent in all the Civil Revision Petitions, has filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 38/1999, 42/1999 and 45/1999 before the Rent Controller, Virudhunagar, for eviction of the tenants/revision petitioners on the grounds that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction and for additional accommodation, invoking the provisions in Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

3. All the petitions, were opposed by the tenants, contending that the building is not bona fidely required for the landlord for the extension of his business, after demolishing and reconstruction and that the additional accommodation sought for is also not true and that the hardship, which may be caused to the tenants by granting an order of eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord, with among other grounds.

4. The Rent Controller, who decided the cases separately, came to the conclusion that the building is required for the landlord for the purpose of additional accommodation, as contemplated under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Thus, he ordered eviction of the tenants in all the R.C.O.Ps., which were challenged before the Appellate Authority.

5. The Appellate Authority also, after considering the case and counter case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the landlord is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, whereas he is entitled to an order of eviction, under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. He has also came to the conclusion, that the hardship, which may be caused to the tenant, by ordering the eviction, certainly, will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord. In this view, all the Rent Control Appeals, preferred by the tenants/revision petitioners, came to be dismissed, which are under challenge in these revision petitions.

6. C.R.P. No. 1543 of 2003 is in respect of Door No.100/3, M.S.R. Building, Municipal Office Road, Virudhunagar. C.R.P. No. 730 of 2003 is in respect of a building bearing Door No. 30/15/7, M.S.R. Building, Krishnamachari Road, Virudhunagar and C.R.P. No. 494 of 2003 is also in respect of Door No. 100/3, M.S.R. Building, Municipal Office Road, Virudhunagar. Though for the purpose of the Act, the premises under the occupation of the tenants come within the meaning of the ‘building’, it is an admitted position, that all the portions are contiguous, separated only by a wall, thereby coming within the meaning of ‘a single building’, for all practical purposes. In all the cases, the question of law involved is one and the same, and the facts, that are to be appreciated, are also one and the same. In this view, as agreed by the parties, all the Civil Revision Petitions are taken together, and a common order is passed.

7. As seen from the R.C.O.P. Nos. 38/1999, 42/1999 and 45/1999, an attempt has been made by the landlord to get an order of eviction, invoking the provisions of Section 14(1) (b) of the Act, which was not properly considered by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, has recorded a finding that the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present cases and, in this view, he refused to order eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, which is not challenged in these revisions and in fact, it is admitted, now, that the petitions will not come within the ambit of Section 14(l)(b) of the Act. Therefore, we have to see, whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Act could be invoked in these cases, enabling the landlord to get an order of eviction.

8. Section 10(3)(c) of the Act empowers the landlord to obtain possession of a building for additional accommodation, if he is occupying only a part of the building, whether residential or non-residential. In order to apply the said provision, it is