1996 Supreme(AP) 434

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDY
D.Krishna Rao - Appellant
Versus
K.V.Nayak - Respondent
Decided On : 06-11-96

The user by the tenant is not the test to determine the nature of the premises and the residential building continues to be so even if it is used by the tenant for non-residential purposes like office, nursing home, etc., so long as the structure is not altered and there is no conversion into a non-residential building under Sec. 18 of the Act.

Headnote:

EVICTION - GROUNDS - NEED OF LANDLORD - BONA FIDE NEED - NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES - INTERPRETATION - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING USED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE - CONVERSION - SECTION 10 (3) (A) (III) OF THE A. P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960.

Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10 (3) (a) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act) against the tenants, seeking eviction from the ground floor of the premises bearing No. 7-2-612, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. The ground of eviction was that the 2nd petitioner intended to start his own business in hardware, paint, and engineering goods, which was the family business, and that he had no other premises of his own except this premises. The tenants filed a counter, alleging that the need was not bona fide, that the 2nd petitioner had no proper training or wherewithal for commencing the business, and that the eviction petition was filed only to pressurize the tenants to enhance the rent. The Rent Controller allowed the petition, while the Addl. Chief Judge dismissed the petition, holding that it was filed with the oblique motive of getting higher rent, that the locality was not suitable for hardware business, and that the petitioner had not established his financial capacity to start the business.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the 2nd petitioner had no other non-residential premises, that he was entitled to claim eviction of the respondents from the ground floor non-residential premises bearing No. 7-2-612, Emajee Building, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad to start business in hardware, paints, and engineering goods, which was incidentally his family business. The court also found that there was no material to hold that the eviction petition was filed only with the oblique motive of obtaining higher rent. The court further found that the user by the tenant is not the test to determine the nature of the premises and that the residential building continues to be so even if it is used by the tenant for non-residential purposes like office, nursing home, etc., so long as the structure is not altered and there is no conversion into a non-residential building under Sec. 18 of the Act. The court also found that from the evidence on record, it could not be said that the 1st to 4th floors were non-residential premises.

Issues: 1. Whether the finding of the appellate Court that the petitioner's need is not bona fide is impropriety or illegality? 2. Whether the 1st to 4th floors of the premises are residential premises or non-residential premises; and 3. If floors 1 to 4 are non-residential, whether the petitioner is entitled to obtain an eviction order in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in D. Dvaji vs. K. Sudarashana Rao?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the finding of the appellate Court that the petitioner's need is not bona fide was manifestly unjust and that the learned Rent Controller was correct in holding to the contrary. The court relied on the fact that the 2nd petitioner was already doing business and that the family business was hardware, paints, and engineering goods. The court also held that merely because the 2nd petitioner was doing some other business and getting some income, it did not mean that he need not start another business. 2. The court held that there was no material to hold that the 1st to 4th floors were non-residential premises. The court relied on the fact that the petitioner had stated in his affidavit that the 1st to 4th floors were residential premises, and that they continued to be residential notwithstanding the user by the tenants for office purposes. The court also relied on the fact that there was no evidence to show that the structure of the building had been altered or that there had been any conversion into non-residential premises under Section 18 of the Act. 3. The court held that as it was not established that the 1st to 4th floors were non-residential premises, the decision of the Supreme Court in Dvaji's case did not come in the way of the petitioners claiming eviction.

Final Decision: The court allowed the C. R. P. and ordered the eviction of the respondents from the premises.