https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173436 Clause 13(3)(v) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 was construed broadly to cover non-residential buildings because the definition of "house" included residential and non-residential premises, and the Explanation could not curtail the main text. The qualifying words "does not reasonably need the house" were treated as attaching primarily to the alternative accommodation limb, and the finding that the alternative premises did not reasonably meet the tenant's needs was upheld. The eviction request was not defeated by delay, as it was within limitation and supported by later circumstances. The eviction orders were sustained. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jun 2025 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173436 Clause 13(3)(v) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 was construed broadly to cover non-residential buildings because the definition of "house" included residential and non-residential premises, and the Explanation could not curtail the main text. The qualifying words "does not reasonably need the house" were treated as attaching primarily to the alternative accommodation limb, and the finding that the alternative premises did not reasonably meet the tenant's needs was upheld. The eviction request was not defeated by delay, as it was within limitation and supported by later circumstances. The eviction orders were sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173436