Addu Mallesh and Another vs G. Pandu

R. Bayapu Reddy, J.—This Revision Petition is filed by the landlords questioning the impugned order dated 3-11-1993 in R.A. No. 175/85 by which the said appeal was dismissed confirming the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C. No. 356/84 which was dismissed.

The revision petitioners who are the landlords filed R.C. No. 356/84 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised building which is a non-residential building on the ground that they are not having any non-residential building of their own in the twin cities and they require the demised building for their own business purposes. The Rent Controller dismissed the said petition for eviction on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to seek eviction of the demised building which is a non-residential building as they are presently running their business in ice creams and aerated water in another non-residential building which is taken by them on rent from its owner by relying upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Vidya Bai and Another Vs. Shankerlal and Another, . Questioning the said orders, the landlords filed R.A. No. 175/89 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. In the said appeal, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court set aside the finding of the Rent Controller regarding maintainability of the rent control petition having come to the conclusion in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Padmanabha Setty Vs. K.P. Papiah Setty, . He however, dismissed the rent appeal on the ground that the landlords or not bona fide in seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised building as the said building is too small for the land lords to run their business and also on the ground that the tenant will be greatly inconvenienced and lot of hardship will be caused to him if he is evicted from the demised building in which he is running his tailoring shop. Questioning the said orders passed by the Court below, the present revision is filed by the landlords.

Heard both sides.

Regarding the maintainability of the petition u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable as they are now in occupation of a non-residential building bearing Door No. 144/5, Park Lane, Secunderabad where they are running their present business as tenants of the owner of that building. Such view was taken by the Rent Controller in view of the observations made in the Full Bench decision cited (1 supra). But sub-sequently, the matter is clarified by another decision of a full bench of this Court in Vijayalaxmi printing Press v. N. Shankar, 1991 (1) An.W.R. 198 wherein the decision of the Supreme Court cited (2) supra was relied upon. In these decisions, it is held that being in occupation of a rented non-residential building will not be a bar for filing a petition u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act for personal requirement of the non-residential building of the landlords by evicting the tenant. So, in view of this subsequent decision of the High Court, the appellate Court rightly found that the petition is not maintainable (sic. maintainable).

The appellate Court however dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petition is not bona fide and that hardship will be caused to the tenant if he is evicted. In this connection it is to be seen that the demised building which is occupied by the respondent as tenant of the landlords is situated in the ground floor of the building bearing Door No. 2-4-265/266. The tenant is running his tailoring shop in the said premises since 1940. The contention of the tenant is that the land-lords are running their business in ice creams and aerated water which require a spacious building and the demised building is situated in a land which is very small and insufficient for the proposed business of the landlords and that the petition is filed for eviction only with the mala fide intention of getting him evicted and not really for the purpose of running their business. Such contention was accepted by the appellate Court which came to the conclusion that the petitioners do not bona fide require the demised building for carrying on their business. It is to be noted in this connection that the Rent Controller did not give any finding regarding the bona fide nature of the requirement of the landlords and he dismissed the petition for eviction only on the ground of maintainability having come to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable as the landlords are occupying another building taken on rent by them. The contention of the landlords right from the beginning, as seen from the averments in the petition and also during the evidence, is that they are manufacturing ice creams, cool drinks, etc., in the premises bearing Door No. 144/5 at Secunderabad and they propose to set up a sales depot for such products in the demised building which is also situated in Secunderabad, and it is for such purpose, they purchased the entire building bearing Door No. 2-4-265/266 including the portion in which the tenant is occupying and doing tailoring business. The requirement of the landlords cannot be said as not bona fide on the sole ground that the demised premises is small and insufficient to run the proposed business by the landlords. They had evidently purchased the building with a view to make use of the same for their business as they are not owning any non-residential building in the twin cities and as they arc at present doing business only at a rented shop. As and when the petition schedule premises is taken delivery by evicting the tenant, it will be open for them to make necessary alterations and additions in the said premises as they are the owners of the remaining portion of the said building also and make use of the same for the purpose of starting their business. In the decision of our High Court in S. Krishna Murthy v. G. Seetarathnam 1987 (2) ALT 1 it is observed that Section 10(3) of the Act does not require that the requirement of the landlords should be with reference to existing structure only and that they may use it after making additions or alterations or if the building is dilapidated, by demolishing it and constructing a new building and that the provisions of the Act do not contemplate that the requirement of the landlords should be only with reference to existing structure. Therefore, simply on the ground that the demised building at present is said to be a small building, it cannot be said that the requirement of the landlords is not bonafide. The alleged inconvenience and hardship that might be caused to the tenant if he is evicted from the building cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim for eviction made by the landlords if the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. There is no trustworthy evidence adduced before the Rent Controller to show that the petition was filed by the landlords with a mala fide intention to secure enhanced rents or for any such other reasons. Therefore, the appellate Court is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlords is not bonafide and they are not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant as such eviction will cause hardship to the tenant. Such finding arrived at by the appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. In as much as it is now found that the rent control petition is maintainable even though the landlords are occupying a non-residential building taken on lease, they are entitled to seek eviction of the respondent u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act as their requirement is bona fide.

In view of such findings, the orders of the appellate Court dismissing the C.M.A. and confirming the orders of the Rent Controller dismissing the rent control application are liable to be set aside.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of the Court below are set aside and R.C. No. 356/84 is allowed ordering eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Time is granted to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises till the end of September, 1998. No costs.