https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191605 In an eviction claim for additional accommodation under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the statutory comparative hardship test was mandatory. The authority had to weigh the hardship to the tenant against the advantage to the landlord before granting relief, and the High Court erred by affirming eviction without applying that proviso. The omission was material because later events showed part of the premises had already come into the landlord's possession and another eviction proceeding was pending. The eviction finding could not stand, and the connected revision petitions were remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191605 In an eviction claim for additional accommodation under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the statutory comparative hardship test was mandatory. The authority had to weigh the hardship to the tenant against the advantage to the landlord before granting relief, and the High Court erred by affirming eviction without applying that proviso. The omission was material because later events showed part of the premises had already come into the landlord's possession and another eviction proceeding was pending. The eviction finding could not stand, and the connected revision petitions were remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191605