1. Eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for non-residential premises to commence a business. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 491
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, CJI., D.P.Wadhwa : K.T.Thomas, JJ.
Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah And Sons
Versus
Pushpa Trading Company
Case No. : 8466 of 1995
Date of Decision : 4/16/98
Important Points
Mere ownership of a non-residential building does not bar a landlord from seeking eviction if the existing building is unsuitable or insufficient for the specific business purpose, as a literal construction ignoring suitability would frustrate the legislative intent of the Rent Control Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 10(3)(a)(iii) - Eviction of tenants from non-residential buildings - Landlord's requirement for own business - Mere ownership of another non-residential building in the same locality does not automatically preclude eviction if the existing building is not suitable, sufficient, or convenient for the specific business purpose - Narrow and literal construction of the provision defeats the purpose of the Act. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building to start a textile and cloth business. The landlord owned another non-residential building but contended it was situated in a locality where such business was not in vogue and was therefore unsuitable. The High Court had rejected the claim on the ground that the mere fact of owning another non-residential building was sufficient to deny the eviction petition, following a narrow interpretation of the statute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the interpretation adopted by the High Court was too narrow. It held that the aspects of quality, size, and suitability of the building owned by the landlord must be considered to ensure the purpose of the Act is not frustrated.
Issues: Whether the mere possession of a non-residential building by a landlord is sufficient to bar an application for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii), or whether the suitability and sufficiency of such accommodation for the intended business are relevant considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a literal construction of the law, which ignores the suitability, size, and quality of the alternative accommodation, would frustrate the legislative intent. The court must examine whether the building in the landlord's possession actually serves the purpose of the business for which eviction is sought.
Result: Impugned order upset and matter remitted back to the High Court.
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building to start a textile and cloth business. The landlord owned another non-residential building but contended it was situated in a locality where such business was not in vogue and was therefore unsuitable. The High Court had rejected the claim on the ground that the mere fact of owning another non-residential building was sufficient to deny the eviction petition, following a narrow interpretation of the statute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the interpretation adopted by the High Court was too narrow. It held that the aspects of quality, size, and suitability of the building owned by the landlord must be considered to ensure the purpose of the Act is not frustrated.
Issues: Whether the mere possession of a non-residential building by a landlord is sufficient to bar an application for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii), or whether the suitability and sufficiency of such accommodation for the intended business are relevant considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a literal construction of the law, which ignores the suitability, size, and quality of the alternative accommodation, would frustrate the legislative intent. The court must examine whether the building in the landlord's possession actually serves the purpose of the business for which eviction is sought.
Result: Impugned order upset and matter remitted back to the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether mere ownership of a non-residential building precludes eviction or if the suitability and sufficiency of such accommodation for the intended business are relevant factors. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. A literal interpretation ignoring the quality, size, and suitability of existing non-residential premises frustrates the legislative purpose of the Act. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Suitability and sufficiency of a landlord's existing non-residential accommodation are relevant factors when determining the right to recover possession under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings Act. (Para 8 )
5. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court to consider the landlord's claim regarding the suitability of existing premises. (Para 9 )
6. Does the mere ownership of a non-residential building preclude a landlord from seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings Act?
No. A narrow and literal construction that ignores the quality, size, and suitability of the existing building frustrates the purpose of the Act. The court must consider if the existing premises are suitable for the landlord's specific business needs. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What factors are relevant when evaluating a landlord's claim for possession of a non-residential building under the A.P. Buildings Act?
The court must consider the quality, size, and suitability of any non-residential building already in the landlord's possession to determine if it meets the requirements of the business the landlord proposes to carry on or commence. (Para 8 )
(1) THIS appeal by the landlord has been referred to a three-Judge bench for decision in order to resolve the apparent conflict between D. Devaji v. K. Sudarashana Rao on the one hand and J. Panda v. R. Narsubai and Saroj Kumar Das (Dr) v. Arjun Prasad Jogani on the other. The need to resolve the conflict arises because of the interpretation put to Section 10(3(a)(iii) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The provisions reads as follows:
10.EVICTION of Tenants- (l)-(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 not be entitled to apply again 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."
(2) THE landlord succeeded in the two courts below on the ground that the non-residential building, which was said to be in his possession, was not sufficient and suitable to meet his requirements of opening a textile and cloth business since it was situated in a locality where the business of textile and cloth-selling was not in vogue. The claim of the landlord was knocked down before the High court on the basis of the decision in D. Devaji case in which a two-Member bench of this court has taken the view that when the landlord has a building in his possession the factors of suitability, convenience and sufficiency of accommodation in order to carry on the business are not relevant. Thus, the plea of the landlord that the non- residential building in his possession was not suitable to his business needs, was repelled on the factum that he owned a non-residential building, which was enough to non-suit him.
(3) IT has been pleaded on behalf of the unsuccessful landlord that in D. Devaji case the interpretation put on the provision is too narrow and defeats the very purpose of the provision. It has also been contended that the same is in conflict with J. Pandu and Dr Saroj Kumar Das case.
(4) INSOFAR as Dr Saroj Kumar Das case is concerned, that was a cause fought under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 wherein Section l3(l)(ff) was employed to maintain a petition for eviction. There the language employed by the statute is to the following effect:
"13. Protection of tenant against eviction.-(1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds namely:
(A)-(F) * * *
(FF) subject to the provisions of Ss. (3-A), where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitab
