A. Suryanarayana Rao vs C. Radhakrishnaiah

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—Heard Sri J. Ugranarasimha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

The instant Civil Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against an order passed by the learned Appellate Authority in reversing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he is using the petition schedule premises "for other purposes and not for the purpose for which it was let out, that is to say, for doing business".

The respondent herein filed R.C.C. No. 27 of 1991 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Tirupathi u/s 10(1), (2)(i), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), 3(a)(i)(b) and u/s 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ''the Act''). In the said petition, the respondent herein alleged that the petition schedule premises (for short ''the premises'') was leased out in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of three years from 1-10-1985 to 31-9-1988, but the petitioner herein failed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondent herein. It is alleged that the petitioner herein has been irregular in payment of rents and put the premises to use for the purpose other than that for which it was let out and committed acts of waste impairing the material value and utility of the premises. It is the specific case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner herein, for the last 3 years, has not been carrying on wine business under the name and style "Vinayaka Wine Shop", but involved in creating nuisance by gathering friends and affecting the peace and tranquillity in the neighbourhood. It is also pleaded that the petitioner herein is having an alternative accommodation and is no longer in need of the premises since he has ceased to do business and secured employment.

The petitioner herein resisted the application by denying all the averments. It is his case that he is doing business in the premises and it is not at all used for residential purpose. No acts of waste were committed by him and the premises continue to be in a good condition.

On the basis of the said averments, the learned Rent Controller framed the points for consideration. The learned Rent Controller, upon appreciation of evidence and the material available on record, dismissed the petition filed by the respondent-landlord. The respondent herein preferred CMA No. 6 of 1994 and challenged the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

The Appellate Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, framed the following points for determination:

"(1) Whether the Respondent / tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and liable to be evicted?

(2) Whether the Respondent/tenant has committed acts of waste impairing the value and utility of the building and he is liable to be evicted?

(3) Whether the requirement of the landlord is a bona fide one and the tenant is liable to be evicted?

(4) Whether the tenant is using the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out and liable to be evicted?

(5) Whether there are grounds and reasonings to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, and if so, on what point?"

Having considered the entire evidence and the material available on record, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on all aspects, except Point No. 4 relating to use of the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out. The Appellate Authority also held that the respondent herein failed to prove any act of waste and there was no bona fide requirement as such by the respondent herein. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner herein has not committed any wilful default in payment of rents. However, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that he has put the premises to use for other purposes and not for the purpose for which it was leased out.

In this Civil Revision Petition, Sri J. Ugranarasimha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is not liable to be evicted from the premises on the ground that he has put the premises to use for other purposes and alien to the purpose for which it was let out. The learned Counsel submits that even if the findings of the Appellate Authority are not to be disturbed, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the premises. It is submitted that no tenant can be evicted on the ground that he has not used the premises for the same business purpose for which it was let out and used the same for some other business purpose. It is nobody''s case that the petitioner herein has put the premises to use for residential purpose. That is not even the case of the respondent-landlord. It is the specific case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner was earlier using the premises for running a wine shop, but on the date of filing of the petition, the premises was not being used at all for any business purpose. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that having suffered loss in the wine business, he has started another business i.e., commission business. We will proceed on the assumption that the petitioner-tenant is not using the premises for running the wine shop. At any rate, it is not the case of the respondent-landlord that the premises was let out for running a wine shop. The petitioner, having taken the premises on lease for a non-residential purpose, commenced his business as a dealer in wines. It does not mean that the petitioner should continue his business in wines and cannot put the premises to use for any other business purpose. It would have been totally a different story, if it is the case of the landlord that the petitioner is using the premises for residential purpose. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner herein is not doing any commission business is of no consequence. Suffice it to notice that there is no finding whatsoever by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner has been using the premises for residential purpose. Obviously, there cannot be any such finding because it is nobody''s case. The Appellate Authority was under an erroneous impression that the tenant is under a legal obligation to continue the very same business and purpose for which the premises was let out. That is not the requirement in Law, The tenant cannot be evicted as long as he continues to use the premises for the purpose for which it was let out. Purpose has no relation to the nature of business. The purpose for which a premises is let out may be residential or non-residential. A tenant can be evicted from the premises only if he changes the use from residential to non-residential and vice versa. As long as the tenant uses the premises for non-residential purpose, the nature of business is of no consequence. It is rather surprising to notice that the Appellate Authority orders the eviction on the ground of the petitioner herein using the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was leased out. Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act provides for eviction of a tenant, if the tenant uses the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. It is settled law that the use of a building for a purpose means its use for residential or non-residential purpose. If a building is let out for residential purpose and used it for non-residential purpose, it is a ground for eviction and vice versa. No tenant can be evicted merely because there is a change in the nature of business.

It is the case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner, having closed his wine business, is not doing any business at all. Even if the plea is to be accepted, it does not amount to using the premises for residential purpose. The respondent-landlord failed to make out any case against the petitioner herein and it cannot be said that the petitioner has used the premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out. The Appellate Authority has committed a serious irregularity and illegality in ordering eviction of the petitioner. The order requires interference. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.