https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193052 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. en-us Fri, 11 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193052 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193052