SHRI BALAGANESAN METALS versus SHRI M.N. SHANMUGHAM CHETTY & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 23-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SHRJ BALAGANESAN METALS 
v. 
· SHRJ M.N. SHANMUGHAM CHE1TY & ORS. 
'APRIL 23, 1987 
!SABYASACHJ MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
I', 
t 
' 
~ • 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, '1960: ss. 
2(2) and 10(3)(a) & (c)-Eviction-Bona fide requirement'Jor addi-
tional accommodation-Comparative hardship-Consideration of-
'Building'-Whether includes part of a building. 
;~ 
. Statutory Interpretation. · ' 
. ·,,. ' 
' 
. ' 
Provisions of Statutes-Not to be interpreted so as to render any 
~ 
other provision otiose. 
' 
t. 
Words & Phrases: Expression 'as the case may be'-Connection 
of Word 'Any'-Meaning of. 
' " 
" 
""'. 
'" 
Clause (c) ofslib-s. (3) ofs: lOofthe Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act, 1960, enables a landlord occupying only a part 
of a building, whether residential or non-residential, to seek eviction of 
a tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the 
imilding, notwithstanding anything contained in cl. (a), for bona fide 
requirement of additional accommodation. The first proviso thereto 
enjoins the Rent Controller to reject the application of the landlord 
under that clause even where the need is found to be genuine' if the 
hardship caused to the tenant wouid outweigh the advantage to· the 
landlord: Sub-clause (i) of cl. (a) Of s., 10(3) enables eviction· from resi-
dential· building if the landlord or any member of his family is itot 
occupying a residential building of his own in the city; while sub-cl. (iii) 
enable eviction from non-residential building if the landlord or any 
niember of his family is not occupying for purp'oses of a business a 
non-residential building in the city. A 'building' is defined ins. 2(2) to 
mean any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or -to be let 
separately for residential or non-residential purposes. 
The respondent-legatees of the landlady, using the first floor of 
the building for residence sought eviction of the appellant-tenant from 
the ground floor used by him as a godown for storing his business wares 
on the ground that they bona fide required additional accommodation 
1173 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ 
(l987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
for their residential needs. The Rent Controller upheld their claim. The 
Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent CQntroller hut In 
\ 
revision the High Court restored the order of eviction paJSed by the 
Rent Controller. 
In this Appeal by Sepcial Leave it was contended that since the 
B 
ground floor constituted. a building by itself within the meaning ~.f 
s. 2(2) of the Act, the respondents could seek eviction of the appeltant 
only nuder s. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and not under s. 10(3)(c), that even if 
the respondents were entitled to invokes. i0(3)(~).they.couliseek evi~­
tion only if they required the ground floor f~r non·residential purposes 
and not for. residential purposes, that the factors of relative hardship 
. 
. between the parties weighed more in favour of the appellant than the 
C 
respondents, and that the High Court was in error in interfering with 
the findings of fact rendered by the Appellate Authority while e~ercis· 
D 
ing its revisional powers under s. 25 of the Act. 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court, 
.. 
HELD: 1.1 The ground floor of the building in occupation of the 
appellant did not constitute a distinct and separate unit. The respon-
dent-landlords .could, therefore seek eviction under s. 10(3)(c) of the 
Act. 
E 
1.2 A 'building' has been defined ins. 2(2) of the Act as not only a 
building or hut but also part of a building or hut, let separately for 
residential or non-residential purposes, which could only means that a 
part of a building that has been let out or that has to be let out sepa· 
rately can also be construed as a separate and independent building 
without reference to the other portion or portions of the building where 
~ 
F 
it is not necessary to treat the entire building as one whole and insepar· 
~ 
· able unit. A limitation has thereby been placed by the Legislature itself, 
by providing that the. application of the definition is subject to the 
'r-
contextual position. It follows therefrom that where the context war· 
rants, the entire building being construed as one il!tegr11I unit, it would 
be inappropriate to view the. building as consisting of several disin· 
G '. tegrated units and not as one integrated structure • 
. ~ -, 
" 
' 
, 
~ 1.3 In enacting s. 10(3)(c) the 

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