Holding

A landlord, even if already in possession of another non‑residential premises, may seek eviction of a tenant from a different non‑residential premises provided the alternative premises are not reasonably suitable for his bona‑fide business needs.

Summary

The respondents, co‑owners of two non‑residential shops, were already occupying one shop and sought eviction of the appellant tenant from the other shop under s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for a jewellery business. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding that a landlord already in possession of a non‑residential premises could not evict a tenant from another, a view affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined conflicting precedents and held that the landlord’s existing occupation does not bar eviction if the alternative premises are not reasonably suitable in terms of quality, size or suitability for the intended business. Relying on Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons (1998) 5 SCC 572, the Court ruled that the landlord may seek eviction provided the suitability test is satisfied. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the matter remitted to the Rent Controller to consider both parties’ evidence and decide expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether a co‑owner who already occupies a non‑residential premises is precluded from seeking eviction of a tenant from another non‑residential premises under s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
Whether the quality, size and suitability of the landlord’s existing premises are relevant factors in determining the landlord’s right to evict the tenant.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10(3)(a)(iii)

Subjects

evictionnon‑residential premiseslandlord's bona‑fide requirementco‑ownershiprent controlsuitability of alternative premisesAP Buildings Act

Judgment

[2009] 13· (ADDL) S.C.R. 837

GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ A
v.
RB. JINENDER RAJ & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 849 of 2002)
AUGUST 27, 2009
B
[DAVLEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS(LEASE, RENT AND
EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960:
c
s.10(3)(a)(iii) - Non-residential premises - Petition by
landlord co-owners for eviction of tenant from non-residential
premises - Dismissed by Rent Controller holding that
landlords already in possession of one non-residential
premises could not seek eviction of tenant from another non- 0
residential premises - Held: A landlord is not precluded from
seeking eviction of tenant from any non-residential building
even if he has another non-residential building - Aspects of
quality, size and unsuitability of the building cannot be out of
consideration, otherwise, the purposes of the Act would be E
frustrated - Matter remitted to Rent Controller for considering
objection of tenant as also the claim of landlords.

The respondent-landlords filed a petition uls
13(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1960, for eviction of the appellant-tenant from F
non-residential premises. The Rent Controller accepting
the objection of the tenant, held that the landlords being.
joint owners and in possession of one non-residential
premises could not seek eviction of tenant from other
non-residential premises. However, the appellate court G
allowed the appeal of the landlords. The High Court
declined to interfere in the revision petition filed by the
tenant.

837 H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A In the instant appeal filed by the tenant, the question
for consideration before the Court was: whether a co-
owner occupying a non-residential premises can seek
eviction of a tenant in possession of another non-
residential premises for his bone fide requirements.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: As has been held in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah*,
a landlord is not precluded to seek eviction of tenant from
any non-residential building even if he is having another
C non-residential building. The aspects of quality, size and
suitability of the building cannot be out of consideration
and doing so would be to frustrate the purposes of the
Act. The Rent Contraoller would consider the objection
of the tenant as well as the claim of the landlords. He may
D permit the parties to lead additional evidence. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller would
decide the case as expeditiously as possible. [Para
9,15,17 and 18] [845-E-F-H; 846-A-B]
', ,

E *Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co.
(1998) 5 SCC 572; J. Pandu v. R. Narsubai (1987) 1 SCC
573; Saroj Kumar Das (Dr.) v. Arjun Prasad Jogani (1987) 4
sec 262, relied on.
Vidya Bai & Another v. Shanker/al & Another AIR 1988
F AP 184; Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Thyabal/y Rasuljee (1995) 1 SCC 410; Rasik Auto Stores &
Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar & Another (1998) 8 SCC 177;
Om Prakash v. Basanthilal (1999) 9 SCC 618.; and D. Devaji
v. K. Sudarashana Rao 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 729, referred
G to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1988 AP 184 referred to para 6

H
GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ v. RB. JINENDER RAJ & 839
ANR.

..._A
(199~) 1 sec 410 referred to para 9 A
: ~ ;..
'" .
(199'3);-8 sec 111 referred to para 9

(1999) 9 sec 618 referred to para 9

(1998) s sec 572 relied on para 9 B
(1987) 1 sec 573 relied on para 12

(1987) 4 sec 262 relied on para 12
~
t-
1994 Supp. (1) sec 729 referred to para 13
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 849
of 2002.

From the Judgment & Order dated 26.4.2001 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 4009 of D
1998.
'1
C.M. Nayyar, S.K.Thakkur, Kirti Mansingh, A. Venayagam
Balan for the Appellant.

A.D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain (for A. Subba Rao) for the E
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at F
Hyderabad dated 26.4.2001 delivered in Civil Revision Petition
No.4009 of 1998.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this
appeal is .:.. whether a co-owner occupying a non-residential G
premises ean seek eviction of a tenant in possession of
. --f another non-residential premises for his bona fide
requirements?

H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (AODL.} S.C.R.

A 3. The appellant is a tenant of the premises bearing No. 7-
2-764 situated at Pot Market, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
The respondents are the co-owners of two non-residential
premises bearing Municipal Houses Nos.7-2-763 and 7-2-764
situated at Pot Market, Secunderabad. These two non-
B residential premises fell to their share by virtue of the 'Will'
executed by their father. The respondent landlords have been
conducting the business in one shop only. The First respondent
has been carrying on business of money lending in a portion
of the premises 7-2-763 and the second respondent has been
c conducting a business in jewellery in the remaining portion of
the same. shop. It was the case of the second respondent that
he required the premises (shop) in question from the tenant for
starting the business exclusively for jewellery in a separate
shop.
r~
D 4. The respondent landlords filed a claim petition before . r
the Rent Controller in R.C. No.231 of 1994 under section
10(3)(a)(iii) of the AP. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 Act")
seeking evi.ction of the appellant tenant from the scheduled
E premises namely 7-2-764 situated at Pot Market,
Secunderabad.

5. The appellant contended that the landlords are already
in possession of a non-residential premises and, therefore, their
F petition seeking eviction of another non-residential premises ....·,
is not maintainable in law.

6. The parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The
Rent Controller after recording the evidence held that the
G landlords are the joint owners of non-residential premises
bearing nos. 7-2-763 and 7-2-764. However, the landlords are
in possession of only one shop in the premises bearing no. 7-
2-763. The Rent Controller relying on the decision of the Full
Bench of the High Court in Vidya Bai & Another v. Shanker/al
H & Another AIR 1988 AP 184 held that since the landlords are
GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ v. R.B. JINENDER RAJ & 841
ANR. [DAVLEER BHANDARI, J.]

,.._A already in possession of one non-residential premises, they A
cannot seek eviction of tenant from another non-residential
premises. The petition filed by the respondent landlords was
dismissed by an order dated 4.12.1995.

7. The respondent landlords carried the matter in appeal B
in R.A. No.10 of 1996. The First Appellate Court held that the
respondents landlords have proved the bona fide requirement
for starting business in jewellery and also held that second
~~
~ respondent is a co-owner and not an exclusive owner and
I(
hence not entitled to maintain application for eviction of another
residential premises. The First Appellate Court allowed the
c
appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.

8. The appellant tenant aggrieved by the order of the First
Appellate Court in RA No.10 of 1996 preferred a Civil Revision
-·~
Petition No.4009 of 1998 before the High Court. D
-..
9. The plea taken by the appellant tenant is that the
respondent landlords are the co-owners of one non-residential
premises and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek eviction
lI
of the appellant tenant occupying another non-residential
premises. The appellant relied on the decision of this court in
E

Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. Thyabal/y

,
Rasuljee (1995) 1 SCC 410 and Vidya Bai (supra). On the
other hand, the respondent landlords placed reliance on Boorgu
~
Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. (1998) 5
F
sec 572, according to which a landlord is not precluded to
seek eviction of tenant from any non-residential building even
if he is having another non-residential building. Reliance has
been also placed on Rasik Auto Stores & Others v. Navin V.
-~
Hantodkar & Another (1998) 8 SCC 177 and Om Prakash v.
Basanthilal (1999) 9 SCC 618. G

t ~ 10. The issue that arises for consideration is - whether
under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the 1960 Act, the co-owner can
be treated as owner of the premises and whether he is entitled
to seek eviction of tenant from another non-residential H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A premises?

11. For proper appreciation of law, it is necessary to set
out section 10 (3)(a) of the 1960 Act as under:

"10(3)(a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause
B (d), apply to the controller for an Order directing the tenant
to put the landlord in possession of the building-

(i) & (ii) xxxxx

(iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the
c landlord is not occupying a non-residential building
in the city, town or village concerned which is his
own or to the possession of which he is entitled
whether under this Act or otherwise-

D (a) for the purpose of a business which he is
carrying on, on the date of the application, or

(b) for the purpose of a business which in the
opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona
E fide proposes to commence."

12. In J. Pandu v. R. Narsubai (1987) 1 SCC 573, this
court held that a landlord, notwithstanding his occupation of a
non-residential building, can still seek eviction of his tenant from
his business premises if the landlord is able to satisfy that the
F non-residential building occupied by him is not sufficient and
suitable for the purpose of expansion of his business or for the
purpose of a new business which he bona fide proposes to
commence or that the shifting of his business has become
inevitable. This Court has taken the same view in Saroj Kumar
G Das (Dr.) v. Arjun Prasad Jogani (1987) 4 SCC 262.

13. It may be pertinent to mention that this court in 0. Devaji
v. K. Sudarashana Rao 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 729 had an
occasion to deal with section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the 1960 Act. In
H
GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ v. R.B. JINENDER RAJ & 843
ANR. [DAVLEER BHANDARI, J.]

~ ~ that case, this court took a contrary view and categorically held A
that a landlord in possession of other non-residential buildings
is not entitled to evict tenant from a non-residential building.

14. Obviously, there is clear conflict of opinions of this court
in the aforementioned cases. In Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah &
B
Sons (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this court examined all
these three decisions given in D. Devaji (supra), Dr. Saroj
Kumar Oas (supra) and J. Pandu (supra) and came to the
• ,__ conclusion that the aspects of quality, size and suitability of the
building have been totally put out of consideration. Non-
consideration of the quality, size and suitability of the building
c
would be to frustrate the purposes of the Act. The Court
observed as under:

• )I(
"5. The expression "reasonably suitable accommodation"
is the pivot of the provision permitting the court going into D
the question whether the premises involved were
reasonably suitable for the purpose. It is .on that count that
Dr Saroj Kumar Das case was decided by making the
following observation:
E
"So far as the law on the question is concerned it
is well settled that the alternative accommodation
must be reasonably suitable and· if it is not so then

•
,.. mere availability of alternative accommodation will
not be a ground to refuse a decree for eviction if
otherwise the courts are satisfied about the genuine
F
requirement of the landlord and to this counsel for
both the parties also agreed but the main contention
was that on the facts appearing in evidence in this
case whether the inference could be drawn that the
flat on the thirteenth floor in South Calcutta was G
~ _.., reasonably suitable to satisfy the need of the
appellant-landlord."

6. J. Pandu case is closer being one under Section
10(3)(a){iit) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent H
GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ v. R.B. JINENDER RAJ & 845
ANR. [DAVLEER BHANDARI, J.]
,...
-
{
A
thereby is clear that a landlord who is in occupation
of a non-residential building which is his own or to
the possession of which he is entitled to under the
A

Act or any other law should not be permitted to
recover possession of another non-residential
building belonging to him by evicting the tenants B
therefrom."
,#
t 8. The aspects of quality, size and suitability of the building
have been totally put out of consideration. We think this
would frustrate the purposes of the Act. Here was a claim
set up by the landlord that the non-residential premises he c
owned did not serve the purpose of his need of setting up
a textile and cloth business and that the need could only
be met in seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises
_.'~ sought. As we view it there is no difficulty in D. Devaji case
)Ii,_
standing in the way of the landlord-appellant to have the D
issue examined from the point of view which would carry
'··"' out the purposes of the Act. We refrain from mentioning
any facts on the basis of which the landlord's claim is
based lest the manner they are recounted cause prejudice
to either of the parties." E

15. In Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons (supra), this court
~
was clearly of the opinion that the aspects of quality, size and
suitability of the building cannot be out of consideration and
doing so would be to frustrate the purposes of the Act. In the F
said case, the court remitted the matter to the High Court for
considering the objection of the tenant as to the claim of the
landlord.

16. The three-Judge Bench decision in Boorgu
Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons (supra) seems to be a reasonable G
~ --t
view and of course is binding on us.

17. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment and remit the matter to the Rent Controller
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A for considering the objection of the tenant as well as the claim
of the landlords. The Rent Controller may permit the parties to
lead additional evidence.

18. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem
it appropriate to request the concerned Rent Controller to-- ,,,,
'

'
B decide the case as expeditiously as possible. We direct the
parties to bear their own costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

:-