KANNIAMMAL versus CHELLARAM

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1141 · Decided: 12-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
KANNIAMMAL 
A 
v. 
CHELLARAM 
APRIL 12, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 
10(3)(a)(iil) and J0(3)(c)-Eviction-Grounds under the provisions- C 
Applicability of-landlady occupying one portion of the tenanted building-
Nature of user of leased property corresponded to the nature of additional 
requirement of Landlady-Held, Section J0(3)(a)(iil) was applicable and not 
Section I0(3)(c)-Section J0(3)(c) does not require that the nature of the 
requirement of the landlord and the nature of the user of the land portion D 
• should coalesce. 
Appellant-landlady was in occupation of one part of a building for 
residential purpose and had let out another part to the respondent-tenant for 
non-residential purpose. 
Appellant-landlady filed eviction suit under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil 
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of bomifide 
requirement for non-residential purpose. 
Rent controller allowed the petition holding that the landlady bonafide 
E 
• needed the tenancy premises. The Order of Rent Controller was upheld in F 
appeal. 
In Revision Petition High Court held that the eviction was liable to be 
set aside as the application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of tt.e Act was not 
maintainable. Since the landlady was occupying part of the same building in 
which the tenancy premises was situated, she could have sought eviction only G 
under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Review against the order of High Court 
was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1141 
H 
1142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: J. The facts set out in the application for an order for recovery 
of possession filed by the landlady attract applicability of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) 
of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The averments 
have been found substantia.ted entitling the landlady for an order under 
Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The High Court has clearly erred in setting aside the 
B orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. (1146-B] 
2.1. The phraseology employed by the Legislature in framing Section 
10(3)( c) and the use of non-obstante clause therein make it clear that Section 
10(3)(c) overrides the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii). The latter 
provisions, i.e. l0(3)(a)(i) and (iii) have two in-built restrictions, viz. the 
C landlord seeking eviction of a tenant thereunder should not be occupying a 
building of his own, and secondly, the nature of user of the leased property 
by the tenant must correspond to the nature of the requirement of the 
landlord .. The use of the ·wards "requires additional accommodation", as 
qualifying "for residential purpose or for purpose of a business which he is 
carrying on" indicates that under Section 10(3)(c) the requirement for 
D additional accommodation must be for the same purpose for which the part 
of the building in occupation of the landlord is being used. It is not the 
requirement of Section 10(3)(c) that the nature of the requirement of the 
landlord and the nature of the user of the leased portion by the tenant should 
coalesce. [ll45-R-D, Fl 
E 
Shri Balaganesan Metals v. MN Shanmugham Chetty and Ors., (1987] 2 
sec 707, referred to. 
2.2. Section 10(3)(c) would not cover the present case where the landlady 
is occupying the not-leased-out portion of the building for residential purpose 
F and the requirement for additional accommodations in another part of the, 
building is for a non-residential purpose. The appellant-landlady rightly did 
not seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(c) and the High Court is 
not right in forming an opinion that the_ landlady could have maintained the 
application for eviction only under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. 
G 
. 
[1145-G-H; 1146-A[ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2657-
2658 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2000/23 .4.200 I of the 
Chennai High Court in C.R.P. No. 2093, C.M.P. No. 11456/2000, R.A. No. 
H 25 of 2001. 
--
-
KANNIAMMALv. CHELLARAM [R.C. LAHOTI,J.J 
1143 
M.B. Rama Subba Raju, V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan and S. Srinivasan A 
for the Appellant. 
S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Srikala and S.R. Setia for the Respondents.· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted 
The suit property is a building described as door No.21, 7th Avenue, 
Ashok Nag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.