Back
1993 Supreme(AP) 173
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.V.MARUTHI
Vijayalaxmi Printing Press, Anand Rao, Nizamabad - Appellant
Versus
Nandula Shankar - Respondent
Decided On : 03-30-93
A landlord in occupation of a portion of a non-residential building is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from another portion of the non-residential building if he has no other alternative non-residential accommodation and the portion in his occupation is not suitable for carrying on business.
Headnote:
EVICTION - A. P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 2 (IX), 10 (3) (A) (III) - SUITABILITY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - RELEVANCE - LANDLORD IN OCCUPATION OF A PORTION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - WHETHER ENTITLED TO EVICT TENANT FROM ANOTHER PORTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 10 (3) (A) (III) - FULL BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN VIDYA BAI VS. SHANKARLAL - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Landlords filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises, consisting of one mulgie and two rooms, on the ground that they required the premises for their bona fide personal use as they had no other mulgie in the town. The tenant resisted the eviction, contending that the petition was not maintainable as it was not filed by impleading all the legal representatives of the original tenant, and that the landlords were already in occupation of a portion of the non-residential building and were not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the other portion.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the eviction petition was maintainable against the tenant as the suit notice was issued to him as the kartha of the joint family and he was looking after the family business. The court also held that the landlords were entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the other portion of the non-residential building as they had no other alternative non-residential accommodation and the portion in their occupation was not suitable for carrying on business.
Issues: 1. Whether the eviction petition was maintainable against the tenant as it was not filed by impleading all the legal representatives of the original tenant? 2. Whether the landlords were entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the other portion of the non-residential building as they were already in occupation of a portion of the non-residential building?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 2 (ix) of the Act, each one of the legal heirs has an independent right to claim as a tenant as each one of the persons is a tenant. However, in the present case, the suit notice was issued to the petitioner as kartha of the joint family and he also stated that he is looking after the family business. Since he is looking after the family business, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Renuka Sharma's case (supra), the eviction petition is maintainable in the absence of the other legal heirs. 2. The decision of the Supreme Court in P. Venkateswarulu vs. Motor and General Traders and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerlal are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the landlords have no other alternative non-residential accommodation and the portion in their occupation is not suitable for carrying on business. Therefore, the landlords are entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the other portion of the non-residential building.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the lower courts.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, dismissing C. M. A. No. 2 of 1989, filed against the judgment of the Principal District Munif and Rent Controller, Nizamabad, allowing R. C. No. 10 of 1980 filed by the respondents-landlords for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises.
( 2 ) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondents who are the landlords filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises. The petition schedule premises consisting of one mulgie and two rooms were purchased by the respondents. The respondents were put in possession of the two rooms. Since the petitioner was occupying the mulgie as a tenant, the mulgie was symbolically delivered to the respondents. The respondents were carrying on business in wholesale cloth in a partnership firm in a rented building and the first respondent wanted to start his own separate business in textile and as such the petition schedule premises is required for his bona fide personal use as he has no other mulgie in the town. Hence the petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the schedule premises.
( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that originally, the mulgie was taken on rent by his father and after the death of his father, he continued to be in occupation of the said mulgie and he is carrying on printing press in the said mulgie.
( 4 ) ON a consideration of the material on record, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, which was dismissed. Hence the revision before me.
( 5 ) SRI P. S. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant raised the following contentions: the original tenant after his death left behind him his son and other members of the family. Therefore, the eviction petition should have been filed by impleading all the Legal Representatives of the original tenant of the family, as under Section 2 (ix) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act ), where a tenant dies his legal representatives are entitled to claim tenancy rights by operation of Law in respect of the premises for which the deceased was the tenant and that each one of the legal heirs has an independent right to claim as a tenant as the Statute has recognised each one of the heirs of the family as a tenant and relies on the decision of this Court in Jeeth Knur vs. P. Kondalamma. Therefore, Sri Murthy submits that the petition filed against one of the members of the family is not maintainable and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
( 6 ) HIS next contention is that admittedly the building which was purchased by the landlord consists of two rooms and one mulgie. One mulgie is in the occupation of the petitioner, whereas the other two rooms are in the possession of the respondents. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Venkateswarulu vs. Motor and General Traders and also in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerlal, petition for eviction of a portion of the building is not maintainable.
( 7 ) P. W. 1 in his evidence stated that he wanted to demolish the entire building and construct a new building. However, P. W. 1 filed the eviction petition under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act on the ground that he requires the premises for his bona fide personal requirement; while his case is that he wants to demolish the building. If a landlord wants the premises for demolishing the building, then the provision under which the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant is under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, respondents ought to have filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act for eviction and consequently the petition filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) is not maintainable.
( 8 ) SRI Ravikiran Rao, learned Counsel ap
