Judgement

NATARAJAN, J.:- This appeal by special leave is by a tenant to challenge an order of eviction passed against him under Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act) by the Additional Rent Controller., Hyderabad and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and also by the High Court in revision proceedings.

2. The appellant took the suit premises viz. a malgi (shop) on lease on 21-3-1972 from one Jameelunnisa Begum on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 for a period of three years. On 6-11-1974 the respondent purchased the suit premises from the said Jameelunnisa Begum and had the tenancy attorned in her favour. In 1975 the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on three grounds. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on two grounds viz. bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent for business purposes and secondly claim of permanent tenancy rights without bona fides by the tenant. The Appellate Authority and the High Court confirmed the order of eviction. The appellant produced additional evidence (Exhibit R-1 Sale Deed and Exhibit R-2 Plan) before the Appellate Authority to re-inforce his contention that the respondent was owning a house with four malgis in it from 1970 and as such she is not entitled to seek his eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the contention on the ground the malgis comprised in the house were also being used for residential purposes and ceased to be shops and furthermore the Malgis were situate in a non-commercial area.

3. Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended the a the order of eviction is unsustainable as Sections 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act have not been properly construed. For evaluating the counsels contentions the two provisions of the Act have to be set out. Section 10(2)(vi) lays down that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and Such denial or claim was not bona fide, the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) lays down that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building :-

(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 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.

4. We may now deal with the contentions of Mr. Subba Rao. In so far as the contravention of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act is concerned it is not in dispute that the appellant laid claim to permanent tenancy rights in the reply notice (Exhibit P-4) sent by him to the respondent. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that his claim was not a bona fide one and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(vi). Mr. Subba Rao argued that unless a tenant had denied the title of the landlord also while making a wrongful claim of permanent tenancy he cannot be ordered eviction under Section 10(2)(vi). The contention is manifestly unsustainable because sub-section (2)(vi) disjunctively sets out the two grounds of eviction viz. denial of title of the landlord without bona fides and claim of permanent tenancy rights without bona fides. Consequently, either denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy without bona fides will itself be enough to attract Section 10(2)(vi). The order of eviction on this ground has, therefore, to be sustained. By reason of this conclusion alone