Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.KODANDA RAMAYYA, UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY
S.KRISHNA MNRTHY - Appellant
Versus
Garnda Seetharathnam - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-87
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - GROUNDS - PERSONAL OCCUPATION - REQUIREMENT OF ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION - ACT OF WASTE - SUB-LETTING - ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed three eviction petitions against the tenants in three separate portions of the same building. The Controller allowed the petitions, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeals on the new ground of the Act's inapplicability to Visakhapatnam Corporation. The landlord filed revision petitions challenging the appellate court's decision, and the tenants filed revisions seeking to set aside the findings recorded on merits by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act applied to Visakhapatnam Corporation and that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the grounds of personal occupation, act of waste, sub-letting, and alternative accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, applied to Visakhapatnam Corporation? 2. Whether the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of personal occupation? 3. Whether the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of act of waste? 4. Whether the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of sub-letting? 5. Whether the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of alternative accommodation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Act applied to Visakhapatnam Corporation because the amendments made by State Act 22 of 1985 removed the objection regarding the Act's applicability to the corporation. 2. The court held that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of personal occupation because he did not have any other building in Visakhapatnam, he required the building for his own occupation, and his requirement was bonafide. 3. The court held that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of act of waste because the tenants had constructed walls in the common verandah, which impaired the utility of the common portion for the other tenants and the landlord. 4. The court held that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of sub-letting because one of the tenants had sublet the premises to his brother without the landlord's permission. 5. The court held that the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of alternative accommodation because two of the tenants had acquired alternative accommodation and the third tenant's wife was not entitled to the protection of Section 10(4) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the landlord's revision petitions and dismissed the tenants' revision petitions. The order of eviction of the Controller in all three cases was restored and confirmed. The tenants were given a period of two months to vacate the premises.
( 1 ) THESE five Revision Petitions under Section 22 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, were heard together as the land-lord in all these cases is common.
( 2 ) THREE eviction petitions were filed by the land-lord against thetenants in three separate portions of the same building. All the three petitions were allowed by the Controller against which the tenants had filed appeals. In respect of two, the appellate authority, though gave findings on certain issues in favour of the land-lord, which would entitle him for an eviction order, dismissed the appeals on the new ground raised in appeal about the applicability of the Act to Visakhapacnam Corporation and jurisdiction of the controller. Because of this question about applicability of the Act, C. R. P. Nos. 2455 and 2534/84 have been filed by the land-lord challenging the correctness of the view of the appellate court regarding the applicability of the Act, and C. R. Ps. 2427 and 2431/84 have been filed by the tenants seeking to set aside the findings recorded on merits by the appellate authority.
( 3 ) C. R. P. NO. 934/84 is filed by the tenant against the order of theappellate authority, confirming the order of the Controller, as in that appeal the said objection was not raised. However, the tenant has filed an application C. M. P. No. 14003/84 to raise the same objection as an additional ground in this Court.
( 4 ) THE C. R. Ps. have been referred to a Bench because, of theaforesaid questions about the applicability of the Act to the Visakhapatnam municipal Corporation. However, when the matters came up for hearing it is conceded, by. the counsel for the parties that in view of the amendments, made by the State Act 22 of 1985 the objection regarding applicability of the act to Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation does not survive and the Act does apply to these cases also and, therefore this objection is no longer tenable. " Accordingly C. M. P. No. 14004/84 is dismissed as unnecessary and in the C. R. P. Nos. 2455 and 2534/84 filed by the land-lord the conclusion of the appellate authority that the appeals before him were to be allowed because of the non-applicability of the Act to Visakhapatnam Corporation is set aside. As the present eviction petitions have been filed in the year 1978 by the land-lord on various grounds, including personal occupation by demolishing the old and dilapidated building reconstructing a new building and also because the conclusions have been recorded on all the points raised in the cases by the Controller and also the appellate authority, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to remand the cases back to the appellate authority since it has given findings on all points. All the three tenants have also filed revisions challenging the conclusions of the appellate authority on the merits of the eviction petitions We have, therefore, heard the counsel for the parties on merits of the controversies raised in the three eviction petitions.
( 5 ) THE building known as varalakshmi Vilas situated at Visakhapatnam,has been purchased in two portions by the present land-lord and his wife. The northern portion was purchased by his wife under a separate registered sale deed and the southern portion by the land-lord in these cases under a separate registered sale deed. The fact that this house is 80 to 90 years old and is in a dilapidated condition is not in serious dispute. It is also not in dispute that prior to the purchase the land-lord has been residing in a part of the said building as a tenant of the previous owner. The land-lord s case is that he has purchased this old building with a view to demolish the existing structure and construct a new house for the residence of his family as he does not have any other house in Visakhapatnam. But for three tenants who have not vacated the small portions in the house, the other portion of the building are now in his possession. The portions l
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
