Important Points
1. Part of the building referred to in clause (c) of the sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act has to be understood in the context of the definition of the word ‘building’ under Section 2(iii) of the Act. If the building within the meaning of Section 2(iii) is indivisble, the same has to be taken as an entity for the purpose of deciding the issue regarding eviction and cannot be further split or its scope widened by having regard to the loose general meaning of the word ‘building’.
2. A building, a unit with separate door number on the ground floor of the landlords building, leased out cannot be said to be a part of the building within meaning of Section 10(3)(c).

Judgment

Sethi, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a tenant of the non-residential premises in building bearing No. 3-2-106, General Bazar, Secunderabad, has assailed the judgment of the High Court passed in Civil Revision Petition 2169/94 by which the order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyd­erabad, passed in R.A. No. 440/89 was confirmed. The City Small Causes Court vide its order dated 6.4.1994 had confirmed the order dated 2.8.1989 of the Rent Controller passed in R.C. No. 506/85 directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant. It is contended that the judgment and orders of the High Court, Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and that of the Rent Controller being against the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are liable to be quashed.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant-firm was granted lease in a unit on the ground floor of the building bearing No. 3-2-106, General Bazar, Secunderabad in the year 1967 for a rent of Rs. 175/- per month. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- in November 1984. Respondent No. 1 a co-owner of the premises filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-firm before the Rent Controller on the ground of his bona fide requirement as he had decided to commence business in electrical and hardware. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and the order of eviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the High Court in revision as noticed earlier. In the Civil Revision Petition No. 2169/94 filed in the High Court, the appellant had contended that the respondent being in occupation of another non-residential building of his own was not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It was further contended that the demised building be treated as a non-residential premises and not as a residential premises. It was also submitted that as the landlord was allegedly carrying on his business in an another unit bearing door number 3-2-131 which was situated in the first and second floors of the main building, the whole of the building was to be considered as a non-residential building and the landlord not entitled to the order of eviction against the appellant. While rejecting such a plea, the High Court held:-

“Such contention was considered by both the cosurts below by referring to the evidence placed on record and was rejected having come to the conclusion that the building bearing Door No. 3-2-131 situated in the first and second floors is only a residential building where the landlord and his family members are admittedly residing and it cannot be considered as a non-residential building on account of the fact that the landlord has chosen to set up his office for doing his busi­ness by way of temporary arrangement and for want of accommodation anywhere else. A perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides in this matter clearly shows that such concurrent finding ar­rived at by both the courts below is just and proper and is based on the evidence. Simply on account of the fact that the landlord, who wanted to start his own business after submitting his resignation to the job which he was doing in a Private Company some time prior to the filing of the present petition, had chosen to set up his office for want of accommodation anywhere else in order to carry on his business, it cannot be said that the said building in the first and second floors bearing Door No. 3-2-131 which is admittedly a residential building, has acquired the character of a non-residential building. In the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Krishna Nair v. Valliammal (1) 1949 M.L.J. 74 it is observed that in determining whether a premises is residential or non-residential, the main or primary purpose for which it is let out or taken or used must be considered and that a premises must be deemed to