IMPORTANT POINT
Joint Hindu Family shops in which joint family business is being run and wherein the landlord too has a share and interest and juridical possession on account of being a member of the family would not disentitle the landlord from seeking recovery of possession from tenant of a shop exclusively owned by him subject to his satisfying other requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

Headnote:A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960-Section 10(3)(a)(iii)-Eviction petition against tenant of a shop for bona fide non-residential need of the landlord-The shops other than the suit shop are in occupation of the joint family of brothers and widowed mother and also owned by it-Suit shop is exclusively owned by the respondent (one of the three brothers of HUF) and in occupation of appellant-tenant-Bona fide need has been found proved by three Courts below-Whether a landlord who is entitled to a share in Joint Hindu Family shops which are in occupation of JHF, wherein Joint Family is being carried on is denied the right of seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) from an accommodation (shop) exclusively owned by him under the said provision i.e. under-Words and Phrases "which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled"?-(No)-Appeal dismissed-Case law referred in bona fide requirement.
       Held : A non-residential building owned by joint Hindu family and in its occupation would not be included within the meaning of the expression "which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled". A non-residential building said to be owned or being under entitlement to possession by the landlord under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be just any non-residential building without regard to other relevant factors including the extent of the ownership of the landlord and the remoteness between his entitlement and the occurrence of event when he would actually get possession. In taking this view, we find support from a few decisions of this Court. (Para 6)
       Held (after case law) : We hold that joint Hindu family premises in which joint family business is being run and wherein the landlord too has a share and interest and juridical possession on account of being a member of the family would not disentitle the landlord from seeking recovery of possession from tenant of a non-residential building exclusively owned by him subject to his satisfying other requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii). (Para 10)
       Held (after case law on bonafide requirement) : No fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is held devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. However, the tenant-appellant is allowed three months time for vacating the suit premises subject to his filing usual undertaking within a period of four weeks from today in the executing court. (Para 12)

ORDER

A suit for eviction of tenant from non-residential premises based on the ground available under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act , for short), has been decreed by the Controller, which decree has been upheld in appeal, as also in revision by the High Court. The tenant-appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

2. The facts relevant and admitted or beyond the pale of controversy at this stage are jejune. The father of the respondent was the owner of the suit property. He had let out the suit accommodation - non-residential in nature, being a shop. The property was self-acquired property of the late father of the respondent. The family consisted of the father of the respondent, the mother of the respondent and three sons including the respondent. On 24.6.1988, the father executed a registered deed of settlement whereby the suit shop was gifted to the respondent. The execution and registration of the deed of settlement is not in dispute. Consequent thereupon exclusive title in the suit shop has come to vest in the respondent. In the year 1991, the father of the respondent died. His other property which also has a few other shops devolved upon the family consisting of three sons and their widow mother. The shops other than the suit premises are in occupation of the joint family and also owned by it. So far as the suit shop is concerned, it is owned exclusively by the respondent and is in occupation of the appellant-tenant.

3. The bona fide requirement of the respondent for the suit shop for commencing his own business has been found proved by all the three Courts concurrently. The sole question arising for decision in this appeal centers around interpretation of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) as to whether a landlord who is entitled to a share in joint Hindu family property in the shops which are in occupation of joint Hindu family wherein joint family business is being carried on is denied the right of seeking eviction from an accommodation exclusively owned by him under the said provision.

4. Section 10, in so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal, reads as under:-

"10. Eviction of tenants :-(1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Section or Sections 12 and 13:

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(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) xxx xxx xxx xxx

(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx

(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."

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the shops in the occupation of the joint Hindu family are as much owned by the respondent as any other member of the family. The respondent shall also be deemed to be in occupation of the shops inasmuch as the joint family business which is being carried on in those shops is as much the business of the respondent as of any other member of the family. In any case, submitted the learned counsel, the respondent is entitled to a share in the property and in view of his juridical occupation of other shops he would be disentitled from seeking eviction of the tenant on the said ground.

6. To disentitle the landlord from claiming eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act it must be shown that the landlord is in occupation of a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned and that such building is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled under the Act or otherwise. In case of occupation of property by members of join

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1137

Cases Referred (6)