A residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Controller under Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960). An estoppel against the original owner for letting out the building for non-residential purposes does not bind his successor-in-title.

A. SAMBASIVA RAOJ.

( 1 ) THIS revision p has been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Madhava Rao, J. It arises out of proceedings for eviction and possession launched by the appellant against the respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to ass the Act) The relief was sought to the landlord on three grounds of wilful default, causing damage to the building and lastly that he wanted the premises for is own occupation as his residence. The respondent-tenant is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Rent Controller did not accept the first two grounds, in fact the first of them was not pressed before him. It was on the third ground that possession was directed to be given to the landlord holding that he bona fide required it for his own occupation as his residence. The appellate court agreed with the findings of the Rent Controller on the first two aspects but came to a different conclusion on the third ground. It held that though the said building was a residential one, when once it was let out to the Government in the year 1950 for locating the District Panchayat Office, the landlord cannot seek to recover possession of the same on the ground that he wanted it for his residential purposes since by virtue of the lease, it became converted into a non-residential premises. In that view, he dismissed the petition of the landlord who has brought the Revision Petition.

( 2 ) SRI Eswara Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not canvass the findings on the first two points on the third one, he contends that simply because the building had been let out in the year 1950 to the Government for locating an office in it, it has not lost the character of a residential building. There is no order under Section 18 of the Act permitting such conversion. In the absence of such an order, mere user of the building for a number of years as a non-residential building for an office does not make it a non-residential premises. Consequently so the learned counsel argues the landlord can certainly seek recovery of possession under Section 10 (3) of the Act as he bona fide requires it for his own residence. Since the appellate court purported to have relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Dakshniamoorthy v. Thulja Bai (1952) 1 Mad LJ 390 = (AIR 1952 Mad 413) (FB) our learned brother thought that this question need be considered by a Division Bench.

( 3 ) BEFORE we actually come to the consideration of the points raised, we may have note the circumstances of the case. We may also record that they are not in dispute. The building had been constructed as a residential one long time ago. In the year 1950 it was let out to the Government and it located its District Panchayat Office in it. Evidently it is a very old building because portions of it have fallen down. On 19-9-1968 the present landlord purchased the building from the original owner, who had let out the premises to the Government, though earlier he had acquired portions thereof. The sale transaction was completed on 19-9-1968. Immediately thereafter, he began to press upon the Government to vacate the premises saying that he had retired from service and that he had come to Nellore to settle down there. He had no other building to live in and was obliged to live with his sister for want of another accommodation. So, he pressed the Government to vacate it. The Government was saying that they were willing to vacate it very soon on securing other premises. Matters went like this and in the year 1970 he filed this present petition.

( 4 ) THE points for consideration that arise out of the contentions of Sri Eswara Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Government are (1) though it was a residential building, as the building had lost that character and become a non-residential building by virtue of the fact that the Governme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document