Deciding Authority : Supreme Court
Date of Judgement : 12/01/2000
Bench : D.P.Wadhwal, S.Saghir Ahmad
Facts : Respondent-landlord filed eviction petition against the appellant under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short,the ‘Act’) on three grounds, namely, (1) willful default in payment of rent; (2) bona fide requirement for personal occupation; and (3) the tenant does not require the premises as he had secured alternative accommodation. Premises are non-residential. During the course of proceedings before the Rent Controller,the ground of securing alternative accommodation was not pressed.Rent Controller held that there was default in payment of rent and also that the premises were required bona fide by the landlord for conducting his business.He ordered eviction of the appellant. The Appellate Authority under the Act affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller upholding the eviction of the appellant. Against that order, the appellant filed revision in the High Court under Section 22 of the Act.The High Court by the impugned judgment was of the view that there was no willful default in payment of rent by the appellant and on that finding order of eviction on that ground was set aside. On the remaining ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord, High Court concurred with the findings of both the courts.
Judgement : The expression “to the possession of which he is entitled” would mean possession otherwise than as an owner or in that capacity or having a superior right or under any of the grounds under the Act.The expression “to the possession of which he is entitled” was construed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in M.Padmanabha Setty vs. K.P. Papiah Setty [(1966) 3 SCR 868]. The court also placed heavy reliance on its decision in M. Padmanabha Setty vs. K.P. Papiah Setty [(1966) 3 SCR 868].
The court further said “It is not disputed that other conditions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) are satisfied in favour of the landlord. A contention was also raised that another shop had been purchased by the mother of the respondent with the amount loaned by the respondent and that on that ground it could also be said that the respondent was entitled to possession of that shop as well.This contention has been repelled by the High Court and rightly so. High Court upheld the finding of the courts below that the respondent required the suit premises for his personal occupation for conducting the business and that these findings were neither perverse or based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. High Court was also of the view that the Act did not prohibit eviction of the tenant by the landlord if the members of the family of the landlord possessed other non-residential premises. Even though the respondent and his brothers were conducting business on partnership basis in M/s. Seetha Traders, yet it was no ground to contend that the requirements of respondent is not bona fide.We agree.”
Held : Appeal Dismissed.
By Tejasv Anand , IV th Year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL,DELHI.