The landlord's requirement for additional accommodation must be genuine and related to the landlord's business. Invocation of eviction grounds must satisfy the requirements of the relevant sections of the Act.

1. Inveighing the order dated 18.03.2010 passed in RCA No.11 of 2009 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in confirming the order dated 06.03.2009 passed in RCOP No.205 of 2007 by the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein filed RCOP No.205 of 2007 seeking eviction on the ground of (i) additional accommodation and (ii) for demolition and reconstruction, invoking Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. The matter was contested.

(ii) On the side of the landlord, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the tenant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimately the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds as against which the the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

(a) Both the Courts below failed to take into account the crucial point that additional accommodation is sought for in the petition, not for the purpose of accommodating the requirements of Hotel K.K.Residency, but so as to meet the requirements of Malabar Restaurant which is admittedly being run by one Tajudeen. As such Malabar Restaurant is having nothing to do with K.K. Residency and in such a case, both the Courts below ought to have rejected the ground based on Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.

(b) Even though the learned Rent Controller considered the relative hardship of the tenant, yet the appellate authority went to the extent of pointing out that the hardship of the tenant need not be considered at all, which observation is quite against the ingredients as contemplated in Section 10(3)

(e) of the Act.

(c) The prayer for demolition and reconstruction on the part of the landlord is not a bona fide one and the ingredients as found embedded in Section 14(1)(b) of the Act have not been established by the landlord and in such a case, the orders passed by both the Courts below warrant interference.

(d) The landlord is one Hotel K.K.Residency, which is a partnership firm having its hotel building adjacent to the building wherein the demised premises is situated. There is a gap between the said K.K.Residency building and the building in which the demised premises is situated. The demised premises is in a building comprised of two storied building.

(e) In ground floor there are as many as 4 shops and in the first floor one Malabar Restaurant is being run. This building is having nothing to do with the building in which K.K.Residency is running its hotel.

(f) Purely for the purpose of invoking Section 10 (3) (c ) of the Act, the KK Residency partnership did choose to put up an over bridge linking the building in which KK Residency is being run and the building in which the demised premises is situated. As such both the buildings are separate units. Unless it could be shown that the buildings are one and the same, there is no probability of invoking the plea of additional accommodation, as per Section 10(3) (c) of the Act. In other words, the landlord should be in occupation of a portion of the building in which the demised premises is situated and only for expanding his business he could invoke Section 10(3) (c) of the Act.

Accordingly the learned counsel for the tenants prays for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below.

5. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the tenant, the learned Senior Counsel for th