ivil Appeal No 2991 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 131
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
section 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 103c 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 103c of the Act It was not and as such the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under section 103c of the Act
It has been so held clearly by this Court in Shri Balaganesan Metals vs
MN 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 vs Leigh Euler and Another Third Parties 1950 2 AER 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 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 ie 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
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was sought to be evicted under section 103c 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 section 103c 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 vs
MN Shanmugham Chetty  Ors   referred to
The meaning of the expression as the case may be  in 1147 section 103c is what the expression says ie 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 as in the instant case it has no significance
1148E Bluston  Bramley Ltd vs Leigh Euler and Another Third Parties 1950 2 AER page 29 at page 35 referred to
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