- (1.) The tenant is in appeal by special leave feeling aggrieved by a decree of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short).
(2.) The suit premises are non-residential situated in Linghi Chetty Street, Madras (now Chennai). The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed. The landlord and tenant, both are carrying on their respective business activities in the premises adjoining each other. The proceedings for eviction were initiated on twin grounds, firstly, that the landlord occupying only a part of non-residential building was in need of the remaining part of the building by way of additional accommodation for the purpose of the business, which he was already carrying on within the meaning of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and, secondly, that the tenant had transferred his rights under the lease or sub-let a portion of the leased premises though the lease did not confer on him any right to do so within the meaning of Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. The trial court decided against the landlord on both the grounds. In the appeal preferred by the landlord, the appellate authority reappreciated the evidence and arrived at a finding that sub-letting of a part of the tenancy premises was proved and, therefore, a case for eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) was made out. So far as the ground of requirement is concerned, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the bonafide requirement of the landlord for additional premises was made out. However, within the meaning of the proviso appended to Section 10(3)(c), the appellate authority found that the tenant would be put to greater hardship if called upon to vacate the tenancy premises and his hardship outweighed the advantage to the landlord. Thus, only on the ground available under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, the appellate authority found the landlord entitled to a decree of eviction.
(3.) The tenant preferred revision petition to the High Court under Section 25 of the Act. The High Court reversed the finding of the appellate authority so far as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, and restored the finding of the trial court that such ground for eviction did not exist. On the ground of bonafide requirement, the High Court upheld the finding of the appellate authority that the requirement for additional space for the landlord was made out and to that extent the appellate authority's finding was upheld. Though in the opinion of the High Court, decree of eviction on the ground under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) was liable to be set aside still it could be supported and upheld on the ground under Section 10(3)(c). The landlord, non-petitioner in the High Court disputed the correctness of finding recorded by the appellate authority against him. On the issue of comparative hardship, the High Court formed an opinion that the conclusion drawn by the appellate authority from the proved facts was wholly unsustainable in law and to that extent reversing the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority , the High Court has allowed decree for eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has preferred this appeal by special leave.;