Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 could be sustained without considering the proviso requiring the Controller to reject the application if the hardship to the tenant outweighed the advantage to the landlord.
Analysis: The proviso to clause (e) of Section 10(3) makes it obligatory to weigh the hardship likely to be caused to the tenant against the advantage to the landlord in every application for additional accommodation under clause (c). The High Court failed to advert to this mandatory statutory requirement while affirming eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. The omission was material, particularly in view of the subsequent events showing that part of the premises had already come into the landlord's possession and that proceedings were pending for eviction of another tenant.
Conclusion: The eviction finding could not be sustained without application of the comparative hardship proviso, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the connected revision petitions in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: In an eviction claim for additional accommodation, the authority must mandatorily apply the statutory comparative hardship test before granting relief.