Additional accommodation under tenancy law may be claimed beyond the tenant's original use if landlord's need is bona fide and hardship favours

A landlord already occupying part of a building may seek eviction for additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c), and the claim is not confined by the residential or non-residential character of the portion let out. The provision operates independently of the restrictions in Section 10(3)(a), so the additional accommodation need not be for the same purpose as the tenant's original occupation. The landlord must still show bona fide requirement, meaning a genuine and reasonable need rather than a pretext, and the comparative hardship proviso requires a balance of convenience. Where the landlord's need for enlarged space is pressing and the tenant shows no real effort to secure alternatives, the hardship balance favours the landlord.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a landlord occupying only a part of a building can seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation without regard to the residential or non-residential character of the portion let out. (ii) Whether the landlord established bona fide requirement and whether the comparative hardship under the proviso to Section 10(3)(c) outweighed the landlord's advantage.

Issue (i): Whether a landlord occupying only a part of a building can seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation without regard to the residential or non-residential character of the portion let out.

Analysis: The definition of building includes a part of a building, but Section 10(3)(c) is a special provision intended to permit a landlord already occupying part of the same building to readjust his requirements by seeking additional accommodation from the tenant occupying the remaining part. The non obstante clause makes clause (c) operate independently of the restrictions in clause (a), and the words "whether residential or non-residential" and "as the case may be" do not import the limitations found in clause (a). The additional accommodation need not be for the same purpose for which the tenant was originally occupying the premises.

Conclusion: The landlord may seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c) even if the purpose of the additional accommodation differs from the purpose for which the tenant occupied the premises.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord established bona fide requirement and whether the comparative hardship under the proviso to Section 10(3)(c) outweighed the landlord's advantage.

Analysis: Bona fide requirement is satisfied where the landlord shows a genuine and reasonable need and not a mere pretence or device to evict the tenant. The landlord's need arose from the increased family requirements after the marriages of her sons, and the accommodation in her occupation was found insufficient. On hardship, the tenant did not establish real efforts to secure alternative accommodation, while the landlord's need for enlarged residential space was genuine and pressing. The balance of hardship and advantage therefore favoured the landlord.

Conclusion: The landlord established bona fide requirement, and the comparative hardship did not warrant rejection of the eviction claim.

Final Conclusion: The statutory grounds for eviction were made out, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises within the time granted by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 10(3)(c), a landlord occupying part of a building may seek additional accommodation from the remaining part without being confined to the same residential or non-residential use as the tenant, provided the requirement is bona fide and the balance of hardship favours the landlord.

---