Additional accommodation under rent control turns on bona fide need and hardship, not rigid use-based classification of the premises.

A rent control provision for additional accommodation applies where a landlord occupies part of an integrated building and seeks the remaining portion from a tenant; the building cannot be rigidly split into separate units if that would defeat the scheme of the statute. The provision is not confined by the tenant's residential or non-residential use, because the focus is the landlord's bona fide need for additional space and the balance of hardship. Revisional interference is justified where the appellate forum applies the wrong test, ignores material evidence, or disturbs findings without proper basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ground floor let to the tenant constituted a separate building so as to confine the landlord to Section 10(3)(a)(i) and exclude Section 10(3)(c); (ii) whether Section 10(3)(c) permits eviction for additional accommodation even when the landlord's requirement is residential and the tenant's user is non-residential, or vice versa; (iii) whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the Appellate Authority's findings on comparative hardship.

Issue (i): Whether the ground floor let to the tenant constituted a separate building so as to confine the landlord to Section 10(3)(a)(i) and exclude Section 10(3)(c).

Analysis: The definition of building in Section 2(2) is controlled by context and cannot be applied mechanically where the statutory setting shows that the building is to be viewed as one integrated unit. Section 10(3)(c) expressly contemplates a landlord occupying only a part of a building and seeking possession of the remaining part from a tenant occupying the whole or any portion of it. Reading the definition of building so as to make every separately let portion a wholly independent unit would deprive Section 10(3)(c) of effect and render it otiose. The provision is also supported by its twin provisos, which show that the legislature intended a distinct scheme for additional accommodation cases.

Conclusion: The ground floor could not be treated as a separate unit so as to exclude Section 10(3)(c); the landlord could invoke that provision.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 10(3)(c) permits eviction for additional accommodation even when the landlord's requirement is residential and the tenant's user is non-residential, or vice versa.

Analysis: Section 10(3)(c) is framed in broad language and refers to a landlord occupying part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, and to eviction of any tenant occupying the remaining part. The non obstante clause overrides the restrictions in Section 10(3)(a) concerning the nature of the building and the corresponding user by the tenant. The emphasis under Section 10(3)(c) is on the landlord's bona fide need for additional accommodation, not on matching the tenant's user with the landlord's requirement. The words "as the case may be" were held to be descriptive of the landlord's need, not restrictive of the class of building.

Conclusion: Section 10(3)(c) applies irrespective of whether the tenant's occupation is residential or non-residential, so long as the landlord bona fide requires additional accommodation and the hardship balance favours the landlord.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the Appellate Authority's findings on comparative hardship.

Analysis: The Rent Controller had recorded findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlords. The High Court found that the Appellate Authority had applied wrong tests, omitted relevant materials, and disturbed unchallenged findings without proper basis. Interference in revision was justified because the appellate decision suffered from manifest error and non-advertence to material evidence, bringing the case within the revisional power under Section 25.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the Appellate Authority's order and restoring eviction.

Final Conclusion: The landlord's claim for additional accommodation succeeded, the revisional interference was upheld, and the tenant's challenge failed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a partial-building occupation case under a rent control statute, the provision for additional accommodation is governed by the landlord's bona fide need and comparative hardship, and its operation is not confined by the tenant's existing user or by a rigid compartmentalisation of the building into separate units when the statutory context indicates an integrated building.

---