Eviction of mixed-use premises turns on separate unit status, factual reading of "as the case may be," and comparative hardship.

For eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a portion of premises will not be treated as a separate and distinct unit unless the context and actual user support that characterisation; a small non-residential portion within a residential building may therefore be included for the landlord's requirement. The phrase "as the case may be" is read according to the factual situation and adds no independent restriction where no separate unit exists. Comparative hardship is assessed by the parties' relative ability to secure alternative accommodation, and eviction is not barred where the tenant can relocate but the landlord would suffer greater hardship.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the portion let out for non-residential use constituted a separate and distinct unit for the purpose of eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; (ii) Whether the expression "as the case may be" altered the application of the landlord's requirement under the provision; (iii) Whether comparative hardship barred eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the portion let out for non-residential use constituted a separate and distinct unit for the purpose of eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Analysis: The provision was applied on the footing that the building, though having different user portions, was not shown by the context or actual user to consist of separate and distinct units. The non-residential portion was only a small part of the residential building and could not be treated as an independent unit for the purpose of the landlord's residential requirement.

Conclusion: The portion let out was not a separate and distinct unit, and eviction under Section 10(3)(c) was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "as the case may be" altered the application of the landlord's requirement under the provision.

Analysis: The expression was construed as applying to the factual situation that actually exists. It was held that where separate and distinct units exist, the requirement must be assessed accordingly, but where no such separate unit exists, the expression has no independent significance.

Conclusion: The phrase did not assist the tenant and did not prevent eviction.

Issue (iii): Whether comparative hardship barred eviction.

Analysis: On the facts, the tenant was found to be an affluent businessman capable of securing alternative accommodation, whereas the landlords had only the house in question and would suffer greater hardship if denied the additional portion.

Conclusion: Comparative hardship did not bar eviction and the finding favoured the landlords.

Final Conclusion: The tenant's challenge to the eviction order failed on all material grounds, and the landlord's entitlement to recover the additional portion was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For eviction under Section 10(3)(c), a portion of a building cannot be treated as a separate and distinct unit unless the context and actual user so require; the meaning of "as the case may be" depends on the factual situation, and comparative hardship is assessed on the relative ability of the parties to secure alternative accommodation.

---