Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.BHASKARAN, M.JAGANADHA RAO, S.S.M.QUADRI
Vidya Bai - Appellant
Versus
Shankerlal - Respondent
Decided On : 09-24-87
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - OCCUPATION OF ANOTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BY LANDLORD - SECTION 10 (3) (A) (III) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - INTERPRETATION - LANDLORD IN OCCUPATION OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CANNOT EVICT TENANT FROM ANOTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BELONGING TO HIM IN THE SAME CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WHICH HE IS CARRYING ON OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS WHICH HE BONA FIDE PROPOSES TO COMMENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord, in occupation of non-residential building No. 4-5-880, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, filed R. C. No. 211 of 1976 to evict tenant from another non-residential building, Mulgi No. 4-5-879 owned by him (landlord) in the occupation of the tenant situate in the same city, under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act, on the ground that it was bona fide required by him for his personal business as his major son, Babulal, educated but unemployed, wanted to commence a new business in the said premises. The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the tenant, dismissing the application for eviction. The matter was carried in appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad (R. A. No. 289/79) by the landlord. During the pendency of the appeal, Puranmal (the tenant) died. His legal representatives, his widow and two sons, were impleaded as supplemental respondents 2 to 4. The appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to put the landlord back into possession of the premises on two grounds: (i) that the appellant bona fide required the mulgi for commencing the business of his son, Babulal, and (ii) that the supplemental respondents 2 to 4 were not entitled to protection under the Act, holding that they were not tenants as defined in Sec. 2 (ix) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, two of the legal representatives of the said Puranmal, viz., supplemental respondents 2 and 3 before the appellate authority, have filed this revision under Section 22 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a landlord in occupation of a non-residential building is not entitled, for carrying on his business or for commencing a business, to get back possession of another non-residential building in the occupation of a tenant; the bar under the Section against securing eviction of the tenant of such non-residential building is absolute; suitability, convenience and sufficiency of the non-residential building already in the occupation of the landlord for carrying on the business of the applicant (landlord) or to meet the bona fide need of any other member of the family of the applicant (landlord), independent of and over and above the need of the applicant (landlord), are all, in our view, irrelevant considerations in the context of construing the provisions in Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act which, in clear terms, interdicts the landlord, in absolute terms, from seeking recovery of the non-residential building belonging to him in the occupation of the tenant.
Issues: Whether a landlord in occupation of a non-residential building is entitled to recover possession of another non-residential building situate in the same city, owned by him, in the occupation of a tenant, for the purpose of carrying on his business or for commencing a business in that premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and held that the landlord, who is in occupation of a non-residential building, cannot evict the tenant from another non-residential building belonging to him in the same city, town or village, for the purpose of carrying on his business or for commencing a business.
Final Decision: Revision allowed.
( 1 ) IF the golden rule of interpretation that the ordinary meaning of the words used by the statute and the grammatical sense thereof should be adhered to, there could be little doubt that a landlord already in occupation of a nonresidential building of which he is the owner or to the possession of which he is entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the act ) or otherwise, could not invoke Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act for eviction of a tenant in occupation of another non-residential building belonging to him (the landlord) in the same city, town or village, for the purpose of business which he (the landlord) is carrying on or for the purpose of a business which he bona fide proposes to commence. A Division Bench consisting of Basi Reddy, J. , and Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. , (as he then was), however, took a contrary view in Balaiah s case AIR 1965 Andh Pra 435. P. A. Choudary, J. , before whom this revision petition was posted for hearing earlier, doubted the correctness of the ruling of the said Division Bench; hence, on reference, this is before this Full Bench.
( 2 ) NOW the facts in brief. The first respondent herein (Shankarlal), hereinafter referred to as the landlord , in occupation of non-residential building No. 4-5-880, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, filed R. C. No. 211 of 1976 on the file of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, to evict Puranmal (hereinafter referred to as the tenant ) from another non-residential building, Mulgi No. 4-5-879 owned by him (landlord) in the occupation of the tenant situate in the same city, under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act, on the ground that it was bona fide required by him for his personal business as his major son, Babulal, educated but unemployed, wanted to commence a new business in the said premises. The tenant resisted the claim for eviction contending, inter alia, that the landlord who was in occupation of the nonresidential building No. 4-5-880 was not entitled to recover possession of the nonresidential building No. 4 -5-879 in his (tenant s) occupation in the very same city. The Rent Controller accepting the contention of the tenant, dismissed the application for eviction. The matter was carried in appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad (R. A. No. 289/79) by the landlord. During the pendency of the appeal, Puranmal (the tenant) died. His legal representatives, his widow and two sons, were impleaded as supplemental respondents 2 to 4. The appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to put the landlord back into possession of the premises on two grounds : (i) that the appellant bona fide required the mulgi for commencing the business of his son, Babulal, and (ii) that the supplemental respondents 2 to 4 were not entitled to protection under the Act, holding that they were not tenants as defined in Sec. 2 (ix) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, two of the legal representatives of the said Puranmal, viz. , supplemental respondents 2 and 3 before the appellate authority, have filed this revision under Section 22 of the Act; in the revision, the 4th supplemental respondent, one of the sons of the deceased Puranmal, is shown as the second respondent.
( 3 ) BEFORE embarking upon the discussion on the main question, we may dispose of the short point whether the widow and sons of Puranmal, the original tenant, are entitled to protection from being evicted from the premises. Section 2 (ix) of the Act reads as follows :- " (ix) tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant s family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but do
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
