Back
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
S.V. MARUTHI, J.
Hardhayandas and another - Petitioner
Versus
Hifazat Hussain (died) per L.R. Aizaz Hussain - Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 3782 and 4005 of 1991
Decided on : 21-09-1994
A landlord can seek eviction of a tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, if the landlord requires the premises for expanding their business, provided that the requirement is bona fide and the landlord does not possess any other suitable accommodation.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - EXPANSION OF BUSINESS - ALLIED BUSINESS - COMPOSITE LEASE - HARDSHIP - RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT - PROOF OF RESIDENCY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, landlords, filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant, seeking eviction from the ground floor (non-residential) and first and second floors (residential) of the building. The petitioners claimed they required the ground floor for expanding their plywood business and the first and second floors for their residence. The tenant resisted the eviction, claiming the requirement was not bona fide and the eviction petition was brought with mala fide intention.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, and the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirmed the order. The petitioners filed revision petitions challenging the orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' requirement of the premises for expanding their business was bona fide? 2. Whether the requirement of the premises for residential purposes was bona fide? 3. Whether the lease was a composite lease and, therefore, not maintainable under the Rent Control Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Bona fide Requirement for Expanding Business: - The petitioners had been running a plywood business in the ground floor of the building. - They sought to expand their business by adding glass and aluminum sections, which they argued were allied businesses to plywood. - The petitioners had taken a godown on rent for their business, indicating their need for additional space. - The petitioners did not have any other non-residential building in Hyderabad. - The Court held that the petitioners had established a bona fide requirement for expanding their business.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were allowed, and the eviction petition was allowed. The tenant was granted six months to vacate the premises, subject to the condition that he continued to pay rent.
ORDER :
1. These two civil revision petitions arise out of a rent control petition filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant. C.R.P. No. 3782 of 1991 is filed against the judgment of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad in Rent Appeal No. 508 of 1987 which was filed against R.C. No. 95 of 1980. The landlords are the petitioners in the civil revision petition.
2. Civil Revision Petition No. 4005 of 1991 arises out of an order in LA. No. 912 of 1990 in Rent Appeal No. 508 of 1987. I.A. No. 912 of 1990 was filed for adducing additional evidence, which was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad against which C.R.P. No. 4005 of 1991 was filed. Both the civil revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioners are the landlords of the premises bearing Municipal No. 5-3-1064, Nizamshahi Road, Hyderabad. The building was a three storeyed building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. In the ground floor there were mulgies with a godown on the rear-side, which are used for non-residential purposes and the first and second floors were used for residential purposes. On Dr. Fakurddin Hussain was the original owner of the building. One of the mulgies in the ground floor was occupied by the petitioners as tenants and they were running partnership business in ply-wood and hardware under the name and style of M/s. Sri Shyam Hardware and Ply Wood centre. The other mulgies and the godown in the ground floor were under the occupation of the respondent-tenant. The respondent is carrying on business in hardware and gardening tools as a tenant occupying the first floor and second floor as his residence. The petitioners purchased the entire building from its owner Dr. Fakruddin Hussain under a registered sale deed dated 9-9-1978. Thereafter the respondent alloted his tenancy to the petitioners and had been paying the rents to them.
3. The original tenant was inducted into possession of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- about fifty years back and the rent had been raised to Rs. 150/- per month. The landlords, namely, the petitioners, filed R.C. No. 95 of 1980 on the file of the First Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the rest of the building on the ground they require the ground floor for their additional needs and the first and second floors for their residence as they were put up in a small flat belonging to the wife of the 2nd petitioners, which was not sufficient for their residential need and that if they shift their residence to the first and second floors of the demised premises, it would help them in looking after their business in the ground floor efficiently. The respondent resisted the eviction on the ground that the requirement of the petitioners was not bona fide and the eviction petition was brought which mala fide intention as he did not agree for enhancement of the rent.
4. The Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence addused, dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller, against which the present revision petition was filed.
5. During the pendency of the appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad I.A. No. 912 of 1990 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to admit zerox copy of the ration card, Income Tax assessment orders, assessment orders passed by the Commercial Tax Department, rent receipts, sale deeds agreements, and extracts from the Registration of Firms. The said I.A. was dismissed on the ground that except five documents, the rest were already in the possession of the landlords at the time When P.W. 1 was examined in the year 1987. The learned judge also held that these documents were not necessary to dispose of the rent appeal, against which C.R.P. No. 4005 of 1991 was filed.
6. When C.R.P. 3782
