IMPORTANT POINT
Aspects of quality, size and Suitability of the building cannot be out of consideration and doing so would be to frustrate the purposes of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 26.4.2001 delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.4009 of 1998.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is - whether a co-owner occupying a non-residential premises can seek eviction of a tenant in possession of another non-residential premises for his bona fide requirements?

3. The appellant is a tenant of the premises bearing No.7-2-764 situated at Pot Market, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The respondents are the co-owners of two non-residential premises bearing Municipal Houses Nos.7-2-763 and 7-2-764 situated at Pot Market, Secunderabad. These two non-residential premises fell to their share by virtue of the ‘Will’ executed by their father. The respondent landlords have been conducting the business in one shop only. The First respondent has been carrying on business of money lending in a portion of the premises 7-2-763 and the second respondent has been conducting a business in jewellery in the remaining portion of the same shop. It was the case of the second respondent that he required the premises (shop) in question from the tenant for starting the business exclusively for jewellery in a separate shop.

4. The respondent landlords filed a claim petition before the Rent Controller in R.C. No.231 of 1994 under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as “the 1960 Act”) seeking eviction of the appellant tenant from the scheduled premises namely 7-2-764 situated at Pot Market, Secunderabad.

5. The appellant contended that the landlords are already in possession of a non-residential premises and, therefore, their petition seeking eviction of another non-residential premises is not maintainable in law.

6. The parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence held that the landlords are the joint owners of non-residential premises bearing nos.7-2-763 and 7-2-764. However, the landlords are in possession of only one shop in the premises bearing no.7-2-763. The Rent Controller relying on the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in Vidya Bai & Another v. Shankerlal & Another1 AIR 1988 AP 184 held that since the landlords are already in possession of one non-residential premises, they cannot seek eviction of tenant from another non-residential premises. The petition filed by the respondent landlords was dismissed by an order dated 4.12.1995.

7. The respondent landlords carried the matter in appeal in R.A. No.10 of 1996. The First Appellate Court held that the respondents landlords have proved the bona fide requirement for starting business in jewellery and also held that second respondent is a co-owner and not an exclusive owner and hence not entitled to maintain application for eviction of another residential premises. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.

8. The appellant tenant aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court in RA No.10 of 1996 preferred a Civil Revision Petition No.4009 of 1998 before the High Court.

9. The plea taken by the appellant tenant is that the respondent landlords are the co-owners of one non-residential premises and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek eviction of the appellant tenant occupying another non-residential premises. The appellant relied on the decision of this court in Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. Thyabally Rasuljee2 (1995) 1 SCC 410 and Vidya Bai (supra). On the other hand, the respondent landlords placed reliance on Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co.3 (1998) 5 SCC 572, according to which a landlord is not precluded to seek eviction of tenant from any non-residential building even if he is having another non-residential building. Reliance has been also placed on Rasik Auto Stores & Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar