The court emphasized the bonafide requirement for additional accommodation by the landlord and the consideration of relative hardship in eviction cases.

1. The Revision Petitioner is the tenant. She is aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of additional accommodation.

2. The first respondent herein as the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No.762 of 2006 on the file of Small Causes Court, Chennai against the petitioner herein seeking for her eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlord is that the petition mentioned property belongs to him in pursuant to a family partition. The petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the ground floor of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/- The landlord and his wife were having multiple ailments due to their old age. Consequently, they were advised to avoid climbing steps. Apart from the said fact, his daughter also needs a separate room for her studies. The landlord, a retired Director of Government Musuem also wanted to preserve his books by establishing a library. The landlord is in occupation of the first floor and as the same is insufficient due to space constraint. He was facing great difficulties in preserving the books due to lack of space. They were getting destroyed and eaten by white ants. Hence, he needed the petition premises viz., the ground floor which is in occupation of the tenant as additional accommodation. At the time of filing the application the landlord was 75 years old.

3. The said application was resisted by the tenant. It was her contention that the landlord was having three other portions in the ground floor and the same were kept idle for several years without occupation. He could have occupied the said portions, if there was really a need. It was also denied by the tenant that the landlord was maintaining a library.

4. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has established the need of the premises and also the relative hardship whereas the tenant did not establish so. The learned Rent Controller has taken into consideration Ex.P1 letter to hold that the relative hardship is more on the landlord.

5. On further appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller by holding that the landlord was a retired Director of Government Museum and for doing project work and for keeping the books he was in need of the petition premises as the present portion, which is in occupation of the landlord is not sufficient to keep the books and also to have discussions with the Government authorities. The Appellate Authority also found that through Ex.P1 letter the landlord was asked by his sister to vacate another portion which is in his occupation. It is also found by the Appellate Authority that the landlord was keeping half of the books in his room and half of the books in the portion owned by his sister. While considering the question of relative hardship, the Appellate Authority has found that the hardship that would be caused to the landlord would be higher than that of the tenant in view of the admission made by R.W.1 herself that the landlord is not owning any other property whereas her son is residing in another portion. Consequently, the Appellate Authority found the requirement of the landlord as bonafide and confirmed the order of eviction.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the first respondent/landlord passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record as second and third respondents. Since eviction is sought on the ground of additional accommodation, the subsequent event namely, the death of the landlord makes the said requirement infructuous and the present landlords, at the best, can only file fresh RCOP with fresh grounds, if any, and they cannot be permitted to continue this proceedings and have the ben