About

About.

Landlord Requiring Additional Accommodation.

S. 11 (8)

(8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the Whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.

1. Scope
When the landlord and the tenant are occupying portions of the same building and the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use, the rent control law provides a ground for eviction of the tenant who occupies the remaining part of such building, provided that the advantage of the landlord outweigh the hardship that is caused to the tenant.
This section can be invoked only by the landlord (a) who shares his building with a tenant, (b) who requires additional accommodation for his personal use (c) where claim is bonafide and (d) who satisfies the Court that the hardship which might be caused to the tenant by eviction will not outweigh the advantage to the Landlord. If only all these four ingredients are established the landlord can succeed under S.11 (8).

Sub tenant acquired right of ultimate landlord. This does not extinguish the intermediate estate created by original landlord in favour of original tenant. Possession of a portion as sub-tenant will not entitle assignee landlord to seek eviction under 11 (8) Subtenant purchasing right of landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant under Section 11 (8). Protection under S.11(17) cannot be claimed by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8).
2. Occupation v. Possession
Legal possession by itself does not constitute occupation. Possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. Mere possession by landlord is not sufficient. There must be occupation by the landlord. The landlord’s requirement should be supplementary to his existing use , i.e. he should use the building in his occupation, mere possession is not enough .

3. Additional accommodation

Additional accommodation sought for must be supplementary to the existing requirement of the landlord. Court cannot impose any restriction with regard to the use of the additional accommodation from which the eviction of the tenant is sought Additional accommodation need not be confined to expansion of an existing trade. “Additional accumulation” and “Personal use” are expressions with wide amplitude. Additional Accommodation can be availed even for a different business which the landlord conducts in part of the building. It need not be for expanding the business conducted by the landlord in part of the building. Additional accommodation under section 11 (8) can be for expansion of existing business or for new Business, to what use the additional accommodation should be put, is the choice of the landlord, provided that the test of bonafide under section 11 (10) shall be satisfied.
If the landlord feels that additional accommodation is necessary and if there are sufficient grounds or justification in support of it and then it is not for the Court to find out whether even without such additional accommodation the landlord could somehow manage to carry on. Even in a case where an additional accommodation is sought as a luxury, the relief should not be denied to the landlord.
In a suit by landlord who is already in occupation of a portion of the building and needs additional accommodation which the tenant is occupying in the building for his personal occupation, once it is held that the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use he is entitled to utilize it to best suit his requirement. The condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant. The landlord may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs, additions or alterations to suit his requirements. The tenant has no say in such matters.
The test of bonafides under Section 11 (8) read with Section 11 (10) is not whether the landlord could merely afford to live without the additional accommodation, but whether in seeking the additional accommodation the landlord is pleading an honest purpose and not merely setting up an excuse to obtain eviction.
The sub-section can have application only when landlord is occupying a part of the building and he wants to occupy the portion occupied by the tenant also for his personal use by way of additional accommodation.

4. Personal use
The phrase ‘additional accommodation for personal use of the landlord’ may relate to residential purpose as well as for non-residential purpose. Where it relates to non-residential purpose there is no reason to restrict personal use of the landlord for the purpose of only expansion of the existing business. He can put the additional accommodation, so long as he bonafide need it, to any business or purpose of his choice. All that the section requires is that the landlord must require additional accommodation for his personal use. It is certainly for the landlord to decide what business he will carry on. A Court will not be justified in saying that he requires the building bonafide for his own use only if he requires it for expanding his existing trade.
The tenant cannot dictate the landlord to remain content with a smaller and less convenient premise in preference to the tenanted premises which is more spacious and more advantageous. It is not for the court also to find out whether even without such additional accommodation the landlord could somehow manage to carryon. The need for additional accommodation for personal use is wide enough to include use by the members of the landlord’s family. On the death of the landlord the legal heirs get the right of personal use unless they are discontinuing the business. Landlord dies during the pendency of petition under S.11 (8). Additional accommodation for the personal use of the landlord cannot survive him.
When a landlord requires additional accommodation for the business of the partnership of which he is an active partner, the requirement is for his personal use. Landlord who is in partner of a firm seeking additional accommodation can be taken as personal use and the claim is maintainable.
Once the Rent Control Court orders eviction under S.11 (8) the choice regarding the mode of its further use is entirely that of the Landlord.

5. Part of building
Portions occupied by the Landlord and tenant of the same building used as an integral unit cannot be treated as different buildings in the context of claim under section 11 (8).
It is not necessary that rooms should be adjacent. It need only be form part of the same building though separated by a few rooms. The requirement is only that landlord and tenant should occupy portions of the same building. The term building in S.11 (8) is whether the two portions form part and parcel of one and the same large structure with a common roof. Tenant can be evicted under S.11(8) even if rooms are not adjacent.

6. Section 11(3) and Section 11(8) distinction
Section 11(8) is more or less similar to Section 11(3) in its impact. Due to the presence of first and second proviso to Section 11(10) the interests of the tenant is safeguarded in an eviction under Section 11(8). Further the bonafides of the petition also can be questioned.
Distinction between 11 (3) and 11 (8) are 1. In 11 (8) comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant is to be considered. But in 11 (3) whether the tenant is dependent on the business carried on in the premises for his lively hood and whether there is any suitable building in the locality for the tenant to carry on such trade or business is to be considered. 2. and in the case of 11 (3) the possession of another building in the same city town or village will be a bar for passing an order of eviction. While on the contrary in the case of 11 (8) occupation of part of the building adjacent to the tenanted building is the basis of claiming eviction. Thus it is seen that the requirements of sub section 3 and 8 are entirely different.
To resist eviction under section 11 (8) the tenant has to prove the hardship that cause to him outweigh the advantage of the landlord and the test of bonafide is not so rigorous as in section 11 (3). Question of bona fides is certainly relevant not only in S.11(3) and S.11(8) but also in S.11(7).

Section 11 (3) and 11 (8) are mutually exclusive, entirely different and the requirements are also different. The option available to a landlord under 11 (3) is hedged around by 4 provisos, to prevent its misuse. The conditions for availing eviction under S.11 (8) are that (i) He (Land lord) is occupying a part of the building (ii) tenant is occupying the remaining part (iii) the landlord requires the additional accommodation for his personal use. In the former section the occupation of a room by the landlord is an impediment for eviction which in the latter section occupation on of a room in the same building is the main requirement for an order of eviction. In the former section the petition can be put forward for the bonafide requirement of the dependents but in latter only requirement of the landlord’s personal use is considered. The tenant cannot dictate the condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord. The landlord may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs additions or alternations to suit his requirements. The tenant has no say in such matters.
Sub-section (3) and (8) of Section 11 are not mutually exclusive. If both the grounds are available to the landlord it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or on both. The fact that landlord is in possession of a part of the building will not exclude the operation of sub-section (3).
Sub-section (3) and (8) of Section 11 are mutually exclusive. The second proviso to Section 11 (3) prohibit an eviction order under 11(3) if the tenant is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in the building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on his trade. This requirement is absent in Section 11 (8). The first proviso to section 11 (10) states that the Rent Control Court shall reject an application under 11 (8) if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The concept of comparative hardship is not available in Section 11 (3). These factors make these two sections mutually exclusive.
The test of bonafide need under Section 11 (3) would be more rigorous than the test under Section 11 (8). If the case of the landlord is that he is residing in a part of building and he requires another part of the building in occupation of the tenant for his occupation so as to have additional accommodation and not to transplant himself from the portion he is residing to the new portion then the case squarely falls within Section 11 (8). If on the other hand a person is occupying a portion of the building, another portion is in the possession of the tenant and he wants that portion as he prefers to occupy that portion of the building and not the portion he had been occupying so far it will be as claim that falls under Section 11 (3).
Where the landlord requires additional accommodation for himself and the family members, it would come under S.11 (8). If the landlord requires another portion in the occupation of his tenant to accommodate other members of his family dependent upon him, it would be governed by S.11 (3) of the Act. However, if both the grounds are available to the landlord, it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or both.

S.11 (3) and 11 (8) are not mutually exclusive. It may be that even without the additional accommodation, the landlord may manage. But there are many people who can afford luxuries. There are no reasons to deny that to them so long as the law does not prohibit their enjoyment. The test of bonafides under S.11. (8) read with S.11 (10) is not whether the landlord could merely afford to live without the additional accommodation, but whether in seeking the additional accommodation the landlord is pleading an honest purpose and not merely setting up an excuse to obtain eviction.
The ingredients of section 11 (3) and 11(8) are distinct, different and mutually exclusive. Standards necessary for establishing bonafides in petition under section 11(8) is not so stringent as in petition under section 11(3).