1. Eviction of tenant under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, on grounds of landlord's bona fide requirement for non-residential premises. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 88
2000(1) Supreme 98
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Smt. G. Kaushalya Devi -Appellant
versus
Ghanshyamdas -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18825m of 1999)
Decided on 12-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Srinivas Rao, S.K. Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent : F.S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Krishna Mandwal, P. Venugopal, P.S. Sudheer and K.J. John, Advocates for M/s. K.J. John, and Co., Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The expression "to the possession of which he is entitled" in clause (a)(iii) to Section 10(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act means possession as an owner and hence a landlord who is in possession of another premises as a tenant cannot be denied eviction.
The expression "to the possession of which he is entitled" in clause (a)(iii) to Section 10(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act means possession as an owner and hence a landlord who is in possession of another premises as a tenant cannot be denied eviction.
Subject
Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement
Act Referred
Headnote
Andhra Pradesh Buildings and (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960-Section 10(3)(a)(iii)-Bona fide requirement of land lord-Landlord already in occupation of certain leased premises wherein he was running his business-Tenant s plea that landlord entitled to the possession of leased premises and as such he was not entitled to eviction-Held : expression "to the possession of which he is entitled" in clause (a)(iii) mean possession as a owner-Tenant s plea unsustainable.
The lower Courts ordered eviction on the ground that the requirement of landlord was bona fide. The tenants took up the plea before the Supreme Court that the order of eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord was bad in law as it was contrary to the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act inasmuch as the landlord was already in occupation of certain shop premises, though on lease, in the same city where he was running his business in partnership. It was, therefore, submitted that the landlord was thus entitled to remain in possession of the shop premises. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act provides for eviction of the tenant when it is found that the landlord requires the building whether residential or non-residential for his own occupation. A contention was also raised that another shop had been purchased by the mother of the respondent with the amount loaned by the respondent and that on that ground it could also be said that the respondent was entitled to possession of that shop as well.
Held : We do not think the expression "to the possession of which he is entitled" would mean possession otherwise than as an owner or in that capacity or having a superior right or under any of the grounds under the Act. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the appellant that since the respondent is already having his business in a leased premises of which he is in possession, he cannot seek eviction of the appellant. (Paras 5 and 7)
Held further, that even though the respondent and his brothers were conducting business on partnership basis in M/s. Seetha Traders, yet it was no ground to contend that the requirements of respondent is not bona fide. (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a landlord occupying leased non-residential premises is considered entitled to possession under Section 10(3)(a)(iii), thereby barring eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court observed that the right of a tenant to remain in possession until evicted is not equivalent to being entitled to possession in the capacity of an owner. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Possession of leased premises does not constitute being entitled to possession of a building, and thus does not bar a landlord from seeking eviction for bona fide requirement. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed and tenant directed to vacate the suit premises. (Para 8 )
6. Does occupying leased premises disqualify a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act?
No. Occupying premises as a tenant does not mean the landlord is entitled to possession of those premises. The right of a tenant to stay until evicted is not equivalent to the positive right of possession held by an owner. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. How is the phrase to the possession of which he is entitled interpreted in rent control legislation?
The expression has a positive content and is akin to the right of possession an owner has over a building they own and occupy, rather than the conditional right of a tenant to remain until evicted. (Para 6 )
8. Does the ownership of other non-residential premises by the landlord's family members preclude eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement?
No. The Act does not prohibit the eviction of a tenant if members of the landlord's family possess other non-residential premises. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.
2. Appellant is a tenant. His eviction from suit premises has been affirmed by the High Court in revision filed by him. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this appeal.
3. Respondent-landlord filed eviction petition against the appellant under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act ) on three grounds, namely, (1) willful default in payment of rent; (2) bona fide requirement for personal occupation; and (3) the tenant does not require the premises as he had secured alternative accommodation. Premises are non-residential. During the course of proceedings before the Rent Controller, the ground of securing alternative accommodation was not pressed. Rent Controller held that there was default in payment of rent and also that the premises were required bona fide by the landlord for conducting his business. He ordered eviction of the appellant. The Appellate Authority under the Act affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller upholding the eviction of the appellant. Against that order, the appellant filed revision in the High Court under Section 22 of the Act. High Court by the impugned judgment was of the view that there was no willful default in payment of rent by the appellant and on that finding order of eviction on that ground was set aside. On the remaining ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord, High Court concurred with the findings of both the courts. This finding has been assailed before us by the Appellant.
4. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the order of eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord was bad in law as it was contrary to the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. He said the landlord was already in occupation of certain shop premises, though on lease, in the same city where he was running his business in partnership. It was, therefore, submitted that the Landlord was thus entitled to remain in possession of the shop premises. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act provides for eviction of the tenant when it is found that the landlord requires the building whether residential or non-residential for his own occupation. This Section, in relevant part, we set out as under :
"10. Eviction of tenants :-(1) ........
(2) ...............
(3) (a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building-
(i) ...............
(ii) ...............
(iii) In case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise-
(a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application; or
(b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence :
Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered :
Provided further that, where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause he shall to be entitled to apply gain under this clause-
(i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of another residential building of his own;
(ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of another non-residential building of his own.
(b) to (e) ...............
(4) to (8) .........."
5. Suit premises were purchased by the respondent-landlord by
