In the case of a composite lease, the landlord can seek eviction from the residential portion and non-residential portion on the grounds permitted under the Act in respect of each portion.

S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the landlord of the premises situated in a business locality at Parvatipuram. Prior to his purchase, the respondent tenant took it on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/- from the vendor in the year 1978 under Ex. A-2. As per the terms of the lease, the tenant can run the photo studio business and also reside in the premises. The landlord filed eviction petition in the year 1985 on the ground that he requires the premises for business purposes and that he has no other own building in the town. The main plea of the tenant in his counter is that the requirement is not bona fide and the eviction petition was filed to extract higher rent. The learned Rent Controller held that as the lease is composite for both residential and non-residential the eviction petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Madhusudan mahuli vs. Lambu Indira Bai and dismissed the eviction petition without going into the question of bonafide requirement. On appeal, the appellate court held that the petitioner s requirement for business purposes is bonafide. However, it held that the eviction petition is not maintainable as the lease is composite. Aggrieved by this the petitioner has come up with this revision.

( 2 ) MR. C. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended at the outset that the maintainability of the eviction petition having not been raised by the tenant in the counter, the courts below erred in going into this question and relied on a decision of the single Judge of this Court in Ananta vs. P. Govindaswamy. This case is distinguishable since the plea of composite lease was not raised before the two courts below and in those circumstances it was held that the tenant had no right to raise the same for the first time in revision in this Court. But in the instant case, though this objection about maintainability was not taken in the counter, both the parties argued on this ground in both the courts and hence this decision does not help the petitioner.

( 3 ) NOW coming to the maintainability of the petition, the learned counsel sri Subba Rao, contended that the decision in Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli case does not come in the way of the petitioner. In that case, there were two portions of the premises let out one exclusively or clinic and the other for residence of compounder. The landlord filed petition for eviction of the tenant from the portion used for clinic on the ground that he requires it for residential purpose. Holding that the petition is not maintainable and applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Miss S. Sanyal vs. Gian Chand the learned single Judge held. "there is no provision under the Rent Control Act for eviction based upon bona fide personal requirement in respect of premises let out for mixed purpose of residential and non residential. The Rent Control Act bearing a slant towards the protection of the tenants against unreasonable evictions provided sufficient safeguards to the landlords for eviction and otherwise. The bona fide personal requirement is founded upon the legitimate necessity of the landlord and in the event of composite lease the landlord is deprived of the remedy under the Rent Control Act. xxxx xxxx xxxx the Rent Control Act having profusely provided for eviction in the case of residential or non-residential premises appears to have overlooked the provisions for eviction in respect of premises let out for mixed purpose. The ingredients for eviction for residential and non-residential are distinct and separate though there are certain similar features and in the absence of any provision for eviction in respect of premises bearing composite lease it is not possible to lead Section 10 (3) (a) with a provision for eviction in respect of premises having composite lease and such interpretation is blessed by Supreme Court while considering the analogous provisions under the Ajmer Rent Control Act"

( 4 ) IN Miss S. Sanyal case (3 supra), whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document