K.A. LOGANATHA NAICKER Vs. S.R. BALASUNDARAM MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed an application under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (XVIII of 1960), and also on the ground that the petitioner (tenant) has committed wilful default. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on both the grounds. The appellate authority allowed the petition on both the grounds. The appellate authority found that the non -payment of rent was wilful and that it is left to the landlord to make a choice as regards the portion of his own building for further or additional accommodation and it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which portion in the said house is convenient to the landlord. But, on the question whether an eviction should be ordered under Section 10(3)(c), no definite finding has been given either by the Rent Controller or by the appellate authority regarding the crucial issue which arises in those cases on the question of hardship which is likely to be caused to the tenant by reason of such an order of eviction asked for by the landlord.

(2.) IN cases arising under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, certain stated considerations arise besides the normal features which usually come up for decision in Courts in the matter of the acceptance or rejection of application for eviction filed by landlords for additional accommodation.

(3.) SUCH an enquiry has not been undertaken in this case and the result is that no specific finding has been given by the appellate authority or the Rent Controller on this matter. There has not been,, therefore, a proper disposal of the application under Section 10(3)(c) as contemplated by the statute.