Bona fide requirement is essential for eviction of a tenant from an ordinary non-residential building under rent control law.

Eviction of a tenant from an ordinary non-residential building under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 requires proof of bona fide requirement as part of the landlord's case. The provision was construed harmoniously with the rent control scheme, which is intended to prevent unreasonable eviction, and the absence of express words on requirement in section 10(3)(a)(iii) did not exclude that element. The interpretive approach avoided an absurd result by reading the requirement of genuine need into the clause, so a landlord cannot secure eviction by proving only the bare factual ingredients.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a petition for eviction of a tenant from an ordinary non-residential building under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the landlord must prove a bona fide requirement of the premises.

Analysis: Section 10(3)(a)(iii) deals with eviction from non-residential buildings not used for keeping vehicles, while section 10(3)(e) requires the Controller to be satisfied that the landlord's claim is bona fide before passing an order of eviction. The omission of the express words relating to requirement in section 10(3)(a)(iii) was held not to exclude the need for bona fide need, because the provision had to be read harmoniously with the scheme and object of the rent control legislation, which is to prevent unreasonable eviction. The words appearing in section 10(3)(a)(ii) were read into section 10(3)(a)(iii) to avoid an absurd result and to ensure that a landlord cannot obtain eviction merely by satisfying the bare factual ingredients of the clause without showing a genuine need.

Conclusion: The landlord must establish that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients under section 10(3)(a)(iii); the contrary view was rejected.

---