Fatima Bi vs Mahamood Siddiqui - 1996 Supreme(SC) 1112

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(SC) 1112

1996(6) Supreme 7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Smt. Fatima Bee -Appellant
versus
Mahamood Siddiqui etc. --Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9742-43 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8946-47/95)
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 9744-45 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9373-74/95)
Decided on 24-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Advocate, D. Prakash Reddy and G. Prabhaker, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.N. Lekhi, Sr. Advocate and M.K. Garg, Advocate.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960-Section 10(3)-Eviction petition under-Non residential buildings-Ground of bonafide requirement-Appellant along with her husband and other family members is engaged in business of manufacturing and selling bangles-This family business is carried on in three rented premises-Eviction petitions allowed -Appellate Court confirmed findings regarding tenancy and bona fide requirement of landlady-It was held that denial of landlady s title and claim of permanent tenancy were malafide-Revision-Allowed-Whether High Court was empowered to interfere with findings of fact recorded by Courts below ?-(No).
       Held : There was no justification for the High Court to reverse the said findings of facts. It was stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the landlady that their bangle business was carried on from three different shops. It was further stated by them that they intend to carry on the said business from the suit premises. It was not even put to these witnesses that a lesser area would be sufficient for the purpose of carrying on that business. It was, therefore, improper for the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact in this behalf on the ground that the landlady has not shown how much area she requires for carrying on her business. (Para 7)
       As regards the claim of the tenants that they have a right of permanent tenancy what they have stated in their evidence is that when the landlady purchased the suit premises she and her husband had assured them that they will not evict them. The husband of the landlady who was examined as a witness had clearly denied in his evidence that any such assurance was given to the tenants. The Rent Controller and the appellate court after appreciating the rival evidence thought it fit to believe the evidence led on behalf of the landlady. The finding recorded in this behalf was again a finding of fact. The High Court in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the finding on this point obviously went beyond its jurisdiction. Even otherwise also the view taken by the High Court does not appear to be correct. The landlady had purchased the suit premises at a court auction. There is no evidence to show that the tenants were present at the time of auction. Even if they were present there was no reason for the purchaser, that is, the landlady or her husband to give such an assurance to the tenants at the time of purchasing the two properties at the Court auction. It also appears that the High Court overlooked the correct position that according to Section 10(1) proviso and 10(2)(vi) of the Act, mala fide claim of permanent tenancy is also a separate ground for eviction, apart from denial of title to the landlord. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

2. These four appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this judgment. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8946-47 of 1995 are filed against the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 757 and 758 of 1994 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9373-74 of 1995 are filed against the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 759 and 760 of 1994. The High Court reversed the findings recorded by the courts below, set aside the judgment and orders passed by the Appellate Court and dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the respondent therein.

3. The appellant is the owner is two non-residential buildings bearing Nos. 21-2-372 and 21-2-373 situated in Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. Both the buildings have two floors. Mahamood Siddiqui is the tenant of both the floors of the building bearing No. 21-2-373. Omer Siddiqui is the tenant of the ground floor and Ahmad Khan is the tenant of the first floor of the building bearing No. 21-2-372. The appellant along with her husband and other family members is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bangles. The said family business is carried on in three rented premises. As the landlords of the said premises were pressing them to vacate the same and as it was inconvenient to carry on their business from those three different places the appellant first requested and then gave a notice to them to vacate the suit premises. As the tenants did not vacate she filed three separate eviction petitions being R.C. Nos. 136, 142 and 135 of 1980 under Section 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of the Second Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad stating that she requires the suit premises bona fide for carrying on her business. The Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence on record held that the landlady does not own any other non-residential premises and that she is not carrying on her business in the residential premises occupied by her. The Rent Controller further held that the claim of the landlady that she requires the suit premises for her personal occupation for carrying on her business is bona fide and genuine. He, therefore, allowed the eviction petitions and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises. These eviction orders were passed by the Rent Controller on 11.4.1989. Against these orders of eviction Mahamood Siddiqui, Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad Khan filed R.A. Nos. 237, 238 and 236 of 1989 respectively.

4. Meanwhile, the appellant had also filed three other eviction petitions being R.C. Nos. 1776, 1777 and 1785 of 1986 against Mahamood Siddiqui, Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad Khan respectively under Section 10 of the Act as the said tenants had taken up a false plea in their written statements filed in R.C. Nos. 136, 142 and 135 of 1980 that the landlady had entered into an agreement with them for sale of the suit property, and that they have a right of permanent tenancy. Mahamood had further denied that he was a tenant of premises bearing No. 21-2-373 and Omer had denied his tenancy in respect of premises bearing No. 21-2-372. The Rent Controller held that the landlady was able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between them as claimed and thus denial of her title by those two tenants was mala fide. The Rent Controller also held that the tenants have failed to establish their claim that the landlady had agreed to sell the suit premises to them and that she had promised them not to evict. The Rent Controller also held that claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide and not bona fide. Therefore, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions on those grounds and left open the question whether raising the plea of agreement to sell amounted to nuisance or not. The tenants feeling aggrieved by the decision of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document