Tenant Acquiring Building

(S 11 (4) (iii) if the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village;

1. Object

If the Tenant has in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village or if the tenant subsequently acquires possession of a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement or if he puts up a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village the landlord can apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction of the tenant.
A tenant who is liable to be evicted under S.11(4)(iii) is landlord like, as he enjoys, possession of more buildings than necessary for his requirements.

2. Has or acquires possession
Acquisition of plots ideal for construction of building or where construction of storied buildings where started will not constitute ground under S.11(4) iii.
In an application for eviction on the ground that at the time of letting itself the tenant had in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement, the sufficiency of that building has to be considered with reference to the nature and size of the tenant’s business at the time of letting and not at the time of application. But the position may be different in the case of a subsequent acquisition by tenant.
Landlord pleading that tenant has acquired another building and he is conducting the business which he was conducting in the petition schedule building. Pleadings raised by landlord sufficient to constitute eviction.
Unless it is shown that one of the co-owners is put in possession exclusively by any arrangement between co-owners, it cannot be said that one of the co-owners is in exclusive possession within the meaning of S. 11 (4) iii. Acquisition of plot for construction of building will not constitute a ground under S.11(4) iii. Even commencement of construction is not sufficient. Acquisition of a building by partnership in which the tenant is a partner will not be a ground for eviction under section 11 (4) iii.

3. Building acquired by one of the legal Representatives
Building acquired by one of the Legal Representatives can be a ground for eviction, if the building is acquired in relation to the occupation of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, if one of the Legal Representatives acquired building for their own benefit with their own funds, the court could deny relief under section 11(4) iii. The burden of proof would be on the tenants to establish that the buildings acquired by one or some of the Legal Representatives alone and that they have no connection or right in the business being conducted in the tenanted premises or that they do not occupy the tenanted premises.
Acquisition of buildings by one of the co – tenants, cannot entail eviction of common tenancy.
4. Reasonably sufficient for his requirement
If the premises from which eviction is sought is used not only for residence but also for profession with the consent of landlord, tenancy cannot be terminated on the ground that the tenant has acquired a building suitable for residence, but not suitable for his profession.
If the tenant acquired a building or is in possession of another building suitable for his business he is liable to be evicted. The tenant had leased out his newly put up building is not a defense against landlords claim under S.11(4)iii because he is not in possession of the newly put up building. Merely because the building the tenant has got is having lesser area than the petition schedule building, petition under Section 11 (4) iii cannot be rejected. If it is shown that the tenant has got another building, burden shifts on him to prove that he building is not sufficient for his purpose.
The expression “reasonably sufficient for his requirement” is of relative amplitude and its application differs from case to case. The word “reasonable” is not capable of precise definition. ‘Reasonable’ signifies “in accordance with reasons” and in the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact. Sufficiency of one’s requirement cannot be tested merely on the assertion of the tenant that such and such are his requirements. No straightjacket formula can be evolved for the purpose, nor could a yardstick be provided to measure reasonable sufficiency of one’s requirements. Newly acquired building by tenant if reasonably sufficient for his requirement would attract S.11(4)iii.

5. In the same city town or village
The building acquired by the tenant must be in the same city town or village. The building need not be in the same locality, locality being in the near vicinity. Unlike suitable building available in the locality under section 11 (3) second proviso here building reasonably sufficient for the requirement in the same city town or village is sufficient. Suitable building available in the locality and tenant acquired building reasonably sufficient for his requirements are deferent.

6. Tenant transferring the building during the pendency of the proceedings
During the pendency of an application for eviction tenant gave up possession of a building which is reasonably sufficient for his (tenant’s) requirement in the same town. Landlord’s claim for eviction under Section 11-(4) iii cannot be defeated by this subsequent conduct of the tenant and cannot claim protection of the second proviso of Section 11 (3).
Subsequent event can be taken into consideration but where such fact is created by act of one party by which he cannot defeat a right of the other party. If the building subsequently acquired by the tenant was in existence as on the date of eviction petition, he is liable to be evicted. A party by his own act cannot defeat a right already accrued in favour of the party who seeks eviction by disposing off the building acquired by him he cannot defeat the landlord who seek eviction under section 11(4) iii.
If the tenants transfer the building that was in their possession and ownership six months prior to the disposal of the application, the same cannot negative the ground under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. the subsequent event that can be taken note of normally cannot be an event or an action engineered by the tenants themselves and which has got an impact on the ground alleged in the application.
Building owned by the tenant sold during the pendency of petition, the tenant cannot by his own act defeat the right already accrued on the landlord.
Eviction ordered on the ground that tenant owned another building. Tenant’s building acquired after order of eviction. Event of acquisition of buildings by the Government 21 years after the tenant had entailed liability to be evicted under S.11(4)(iii) will not result in eclipsing the valuable right accrued in favour of the landlord for evicting the tenant on that ground.