http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SUBRAMANIAM SHANMUGHAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.L. RAJENDRAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2166            1987 SCR  (3)1146  1987 SCC  (4) 215        JT 1987 (3)   515  1987 SCALE  (2)423

ACT:     Tamil  Nadu  Buildings .(Lease and  Rent  Control)  Act, 1960--S.  10(3)(c)--A room in a residential building  leased out  for  non-residential purposes--Whether a  separate  and distinct  unit--Landlord whether entitled to  seek  eviction for  residential  purpose--Comparative  hardship--Assessment of.     Words   and  Phrases:  Expression  "as  the   case   may be"--Meaning  of--S. 10(3)(c)--Tamil Nadu  Buildings  (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant was sought to be evicted under s. 10(3)(c) of  the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent  Control)  Act, 1960  from  a  room leased out to  him  for  non-residential purposes  in  a residential building.  The  landlord  needed additional  accommodation  for residential purposes  due  to marriages in the family. The High Court ordered eviction.     In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellant that the portion let out to him was a separate and distinct  unit for the purposes of s. 10(3)(c) of  the  Act, that the expression ’as the case may be’ in the section  has not  been properly construed, and that the  requirement  and comparative hardship of the parties were not properly appre- ciated. Dismissing the appeal the Court,     HELD: 1. A building may consist of separate parts if the context  so warrants. In the instant case, the  context  and the  user did not warrant treatment of the portion  let  out for  non-residential user either as a separate  or  distinct unit.  It was only a small part of the residential  building and not a separate part. The landlord was, therefore,  enti- tled to seek eviction of the tenant. [1148B]     Shri Balaganesan Metals v.M.N. Shanmugham Chetty & Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 707, referred to. 2. The meaning of the expression ’as the case may be’ in 1147 s. 10(3)(c) is what the expression says, i.e., as the situa- tion may be, in other words, in case there are separate  and distinct units then concept of need will apply  accordingly. Where, however, there is no such separate and distinct unit,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

as in the instant case, it has no significance. [1148E]     Bluston  &  Bramley Ltd. v. Leigh  (Euler  and  Another, Third Parties) [1950] 2 A.E.R. page 29 at page 35,  referred to.     3.  The appellant is an affluent businessman and  it  is not  difficult for him to get alternative accommodation.  On the  other hand, the respondents who have no other  residen- tial  house than the one in question will find it  extremely difficult  to  get  residential accommodation  in  the  same locality and as such they will be put to immense hardship if they  are  not allowed to occupy the additional  portion  in their house which has been leased, out to the tenant.  There is no question of balance of convenience. [1148FG]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2991  of 1986.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 13.1.  1986  of  the Madras  High  Court in Civil Revision Petition No.  3599  of 1983.     Ms. Shyamala Pappu, Ms. Dhaneshwari and R. Vasudevan for the Appellant. S. Srinivasan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,  J. This is an appeal  by  special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court on  13th January,  1986 ordering eviction under Section  10(3)(c)  of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act. This is an appeal by the tenant. A room in the front portion of the building had been  leased out to the tenant for non-residential purposes. The landlord resides in the other portion. The landlord needed additional accommodation  for residential purposes due to marriages  in the  family.  Was the portion let out as such  separate  and distinct  unit  for the purpose of Section 10(3)(c)  of  the Act?  It  was not and as such the landlord was  entitled  to seek  eviction of the tenant under section 10(3)(c)  of  the Act.  It  has  been so held clearly by this  Court  in  Shri Balaganesan Metals v.M.N. Shanmugham Chetty and Ors., [1987] 2 1148 SCC 707 wherein the section has been analysed and explained. Ms.  Shyamala Pappu, learned counsel for the appellant  sub- mits that the decision needs reconsideration as the residen- tial and the nonresidential part of the building covered  as separate  units  and the requirements of  the  two  separate parts have not been properly assessed therein. We are unable to accept this criticism. A building may consist of separate parts if the context so warrants. In the instant case as  in Shri  Balaganesan Metal’s case the context and the user  did not  warrant treatment of the portion let out for  non-resi- dential  user either as a separate or distinct unit. It  was only  a  small part of the residential building  and  not  a separate part.     It  was secondly submitted that the expression  "as  the case may be", in the section has not been properly  appreci- ated.  We are unable to agree. The difference between  resi- dential  part and the nonresidential has been borne in  mind by my learned brother in the judgment aforesaid.     Justice Morris in Bluston & Bramley Ltd. v. Leigh (Euler and Another, Third Parties), [1950] 2 A.E.R. page 29 at page 35  explained that the phrase "as the case may be" meant  in the events that have happened. Our attention was also  drawn

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

to  the expression "as the case may be" as appearing in  the Words  and  Phrases Permanent Edition 4 Page  No.  596.  The meaning  of the expression "as the case may be" is what  the expression  says,  i.e., as the situation may be,  in  other words  in  case there are separate and distinct  units  then concept  of  need will apply  accordingly.  Where,  however, there  is  no  such separate and distinct unit,  it  has  no significance.  There  is no magic in  that  expression.  The expression "as the case may be" has been properly  construed in the judgment mentioned hereinbefore.     It was lastly contended that comparative hardship in the instant appeal has not been properly considered. It  appears that  there  is nothing in this point. The appellant  is  an affluent businessman and it is not difficult for him to  get alternative  accommodation. On the other hand, the  respond- ents  have no other residential house than the one in  ques- tion  will  find it extremely difficult to  get  residential accommodation in the same locality and as such they will  be put  to immense hardship if they are not allowed  to  occupy the additional portion in their  house  which has been leased out to the  tenant.  The Court  has observed that there is no question of balance  of convenience.  In  that view of the matter this  appeal  must fail  and is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however,  be no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                                Appeal dismissed. 1149