B. KANDASAMY REDDJAR ETC. versus O GOMATHI AMMAL

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 27-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B. KANDASAMY REDDJAR ETC. 
A 
v. 
0. GOMATHI AMMAL 
MARCH 27, 2001 
[A.P. MISRA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.) 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 : 
Section 14( 1Xb)and10( 3 )( c )-Landlady filing eviction petition on ground 
C 
of demolition and reconstruction-Raising ground of additional accommoda-
tion alternatively-Held, alternate ground can be raised by way of an amend-
ment. 
Section 14( l)(b)-Relief under-Held, though not pressed for-Land-
lady could get a decree for additional accommodation. 
Section 2(2) and 10( 3)( c)-"Building" "part of the building" -Fictionally 
includes various structures which otherwise could not be building. 
Worru and Phrases-"Building", "part of a building"-Meaning of 
The respondent filed eviction petitions against the appellants on the 
ground of demolition and reconstruction, under Section 14(1)(b) of the 
Tamil Nadu Buildings Act, 1960 and subsequently through amendment, 
raised the ground of requirement of additional accommodation under 
Section 10(3)(c). The Rent Controller dismissed respondent's petition on 
both the grounds. The Rent Controller held that landlady wants only to 
demolish a portion of the accommodation in question and not to construct 
a new building hence it will not be a case covered under Section 14(1)(b). 
The landlady's case of requirement of additional accommodation under 
Section 10(3)(c) was rejected and with reference to the comparative hard-
ship it was held that hardship caused to the appellant-tenant will outweigh 
the advantage to the landlady. Respondent-landlady appealed against this 
order and the appeal was allowed by the appellate authority. The revision 
application filed by appellant before the High Court was rejected. In 
appeal to this Court the case was remanded back to the appellate authority 
since the High Court held that the appellate authority erred in considering 
835 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200lj 2 S.C.R. 
the evidence compositely while considering the case under two provisions, 
namely under Section 14(1)(b) and Section 10(3)(c) simultaneously, though 
they are two separate and independent statutory provisions. 
After remand the appellate authority allowed the eviction petition of 
the respondent as against the present appellant. The appellant's revision 
application before the High Court was rejected. In appeal this Court again 
remanded the case back to the High Court, as it felt that the High Court 
has not taken into consideration the proviso to Clause (c) of Section 10(3). 
The High Court again dismissed the claim of tenants and upheld that of 
the landlady. 
In the present appeal, the Appellant contended that once the land-
lady withdrew her claim under Section 14(l)(b), her claim under Section 
' 
10(3)(c) should not have been allowed; that Section 14(1)(b) is applicable 
when landlord requires for erection after demolition and if this is with-
drawn, then landlady cannot claim her relief under Section 10(3)(c) for 
additional accommodation, and since on the facts of this case it cannot be 
satisfied without demolition no relief can be granted. The appellants in 
connected Appeals contended that the definition of 'building' as defined 
under sub-section (2) of Section of the Act, which includes 'part of build-
ing' to be building to submit that the word 'building' used under Section 
10(3)(c), the landlords could only invoke relief under it if he is occupying 
part of a building; that since the tenants are on the ground floor while 
landlady is on the first and second floors, the landlady could not be termed 
to occupy part of the building as defined in sub-section (2) of the Section 2; 
and that since the 'building' is defined to be a 'part of building', the same 
meaning has to be given to it under Section 10(3)(c) and that requirement 
of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) cannot be merely for 
desire and it would not cover cases where it is for augmenting the income. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Both Sections 14(1)(b) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil 
Nadu Rent Control Act operate in two different fields. Section 14(1)(b) 
covers the field where the bona fide requirement of landlord is for immedi-
ate demolition of the building for the purpose of erecting a new building on 
its site. In other words it refers to a case or erection or new building after 
demolition on the same site. This would not cover a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.