JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has come up before us upon a reference, for the purpose of clarifying whether anything said in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerlal, could be deemed to run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmanabha Setty vs. Papiah Setty. The point arises in connection with a landlord, who is not in occupation of a non-residential premises of his own but who is conducting his business as a statutory tenant in a non-residential premises belonging to another person and as to whether he could, in such circumstances, be debarred from seeking possession of his own non-residential building in the occupation of a tenant. The reference has become necessary inasmuch as certain doubts have arisen as to whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmanabha Setty vs. Papiah Setty (2 supra) continues to hlod the filed or not.

( 2 ) IN the case before us, it is admitted that the respondent-landlord is not living in a non-residential premises of his own and that the landlordis himself a statutory tenant of a building belonging to a third party. It is argued for the petitioners by Sri P. S. Murthy that the respondent-landlord is disentitled to seek possession of the non-residential premises occupied by the petitioner as a tenant in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Thanappa chetty vs. Govindaswami Naicker. He further contends that the ratio of the madras case appears to have been accepted by the Full Bench of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerlal (1 supra ). On the other hand, it is contended by sri Ravi Kiran Rao for the respondent-landlord that the question is directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmanabha Setty vs. Papiah Setty (2 supra) wherein the above said judgment of the Madras High court in Thanappa Chetty vs. Govindaswami Naicker, (3 shupra) as been expres sly over-ruled. It is pointed out further that the Supreme Court has approved the judgment of the Mysore High Court in S. G. Narayanappa vs. A. N. Narasimhaiah and that the language of the relevant provision in the Mysore Act is identical with the language of the corresponding provision in the andhra Pradesh Act.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 10 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act), the landlord is permitted to seek eviction of his tenant in respect of residential as well as non-residential premises on various grounds. One of the grounds for eviction is the bona fide requirement of the landlord. We are not here concerned with the more liberal grounds mentioned in the Act so far as eviction of tenants of residential premises. We are concerned with the special provision for eviction relating to non-residential premises and that too, limited to the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. These provisions are contained in Section 10 (3) (a) (iii ). The relevant provision so far as it is material reads as follows: section 10 (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) in case it is a residential building (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . (II) in case it is a non-residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use. . . . . (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 proposed to commence. . " it will be noticed that there are two parts in Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii ). The first part deals with a landlord who is already in occupation of a non-res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document