T. Satyamma vs Smt. I. Susheela

Madhava Rao

The tenant is the revision petitioner. The rent controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the suit premises is required for the residence of the family of the landlady as she wanted to use the ground-floor as godown for keeping the beedi leaves. It can be noted that the respondent''s family is carrying on business in the manufacture of beedies. The order of eviction was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, in appeal. Sri M. Surya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following points for consideration. His first contention is that the landlord could seek eviction of the tenant for additional accommodation for which he is using the premises in his occupation. According to him, in the instant case there is violation of Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960.

The learned counsel further contended that no residential building could be converted into a non-residential building except with permission in writing of the controller under Sec. 18 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent-landlady ought not to have filed the eviction petition on the ground that the ground floor is required for a business purpose.

To appreciate the above contentions it is necessary to note a few facts in brief.

The respondent''s family is carrying on business in the manufacture of beedis in the name of G. I. Beedi works. Her husband took the ground floor of the suit premises for residence about 40 years back and due to necessity for larger accommodation for both residence and business the respondent landlady purchased the suit premises on 19-7-1972. The suit building has three municipal numbers to 8-2-77, 8-2-78 and 8-2-79. The landlady is residing in the ground floor. The petitioner is residing in the first floor, his suavity of manners and sweetness of disposition, his high sense of patriotism, and love of the old institutions and civilisation of the country, his forgiving nature, his freedom from rancour, his love for the junior members of the Bar and his constant readiness to assist them in every possible way, these are some of the qualities in a great Judge and Chief Justice which have worked themselves as it were into the lives and memories of thousands of his fellow human beings who have had the fortune and privilege of coming across him during his juridical career."

Dr. Rajamannar was great lover of literature and fine arts and a great scholar He was a voracious reader and versatile genius. He was proficient in five or six languages like French, English, Sanskrit, Tamil and Telugu He was a prolific writher in Telugu and the author of several books and plays. His last desire expressed to me was to have all his 24 one act Telugu plays printed in one or two volumes. I hope and trust that this last desire of his would certainly be fulfilled and the A. P. Sangeeta Nafaka Academy or the State Government would undertake this job and complete the same as soon as possible, as a mark of respect to the departed soul.

In 1953 he was the Chairman of the All India Sangeeta Nataka Aeademy. After retirement, Dr. Rajamannar continued to take deep interest in law, literature and arts. He was Chairman of the Board of Studies in Law of the Madras University for several years and also member of the Board of Studies in various subjects of several southern universities. He was the Chairman of the 4th Finance Commission. Later as Chairman of the Banking Laws'' Commission, he produced a treatiseon Banking LAWS in six volumes He was the sole arbitrator of the Damodar Valley Corporation and also arbitrated several important disputes concerning the Union and the State Governments.

Lastly, I will be failing in may duty if I do not mention that but for the timely advice and guidance of my esteemed and illustrious Gurus late Dr. Rajamannar and Dr. Koka Subba Rao, I would not have been what I am to-day.

He lived a full and useful life, full of love, friendship, learning and culture Hundred of his friends, admirers and all future students of law will ever cherish this memory. May his soul rest in peace. On my behalf and on behalf of my colleges, we tender our heart-felt condolences to his beloved sister Mrs. Parijatamma Subba Rao, his daughter Mrs. Umadevi Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ramachandra Rao and his other daughters and sons-in-law in their grief and irreparable loss and pray to God to bless them with sufficient strength and will power to sustain this debacle the ground floor for storing beedis, so that they could avoid payment of rent for storing beedis in a rented premises. The necessity of the first floor by the respondent is found to be bona fide by the Rent controller as well as the appellate court. It is evident from the petition that the ground floor is occupied for residential purposes and the respondent wants additional accommodation for residential purposes. It is also evident that the Respondent''s family members want to use the ground floor for storing beedi leaves. But that does not take away the point. The first floor was sought by the respondent''s family for additional accommodation as the ground floor was not sufficient for them. The facts stated by the respondent landlady are mixed up. Therefore, it cannot be held that the provisions of Sec 10 (3) (c) are attracted. The plea taken in the petition is that the ground floor is not sufficient and therefore, they want to acquire the first floor for accommodation. It is not indispute that even additional accommodation can be claimed when the needs of the landlord warrant it. This is made clear in K. Parasuramaiah Vs. Pokurl Lakshmamma, wherein it was held.

For the purposes of G (O) it is not necessary that the additional accommodation sought by the landlord should be for the same purpose for which the building was let out, while under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act the landlord cannot obtain the eviction of his tenant from a residential building unless be wants it for his own residence and in case of a non-residential building unless he wants it for purposes of his business sub-clause (c) of section 10 (3) does not contain any such limitation. Under sub-clause (c) if the landlord satisfies the controller that he wants additional accommodation in the same building, a portion of which is already under his occupation, it is open to him to read just the additional accommodation in the manner convenient to him and it cannot be insisted that the additional accommodation sought for, should be used by the landlord for the same purpose for which the tenant sought to be evicted was using it. The purpose of non-obsante clause appears to be clearly that the entire cl. (a) would not apply to case falling within the ambit of cl. (c).

Thus it is open for the landlord to adjust the accommodation according to his needs.

The appellate Court in its judgment observed as under : --

It is the specific case of the respondent that she intends to utilise the suit premises both for her residential purposes as well as for running her business and that she would like to shift her family to the first floor by using the ground floor for her business.

In her evidence it is made clear that the entire building is sought to be used by her for both the purposes to residential as well as business. That depends upon the adjustment of the requirements, but in the petition filed for additional accommodation it is made clear that the ground floor was not sufficient for her family members and that additional accommodation is required and for the purpose of running business the very building was purchased by her, therefore, in my view there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner voluntarily contended that if the landlord wanted to use the ground floor for business unless permission is obtained under Sec. 18 of the Act, she is not entitled to convert the ground floor into non-residential one and start business. He further submitted that in the absence of permission obtained to convert into a non-residential building eviction petition cannot be ordered. In support of his contention be relied upto a decision in E. Menashai vs. M.S.U. Mandir AIR 1975 SC 2126. In the above case, the respondent sought possession of the premises let out to the appellants and three other tenants on the ground that it wanted one room for its office, two rooms for running a fair-price grain-shop-two rooms for conducting a provision stores, two rooms for preparing pickles, cleaning spices and for keeping the finished products for sale, two rooms for establishing a godown and some more apart for conducting tailoring and sewing class. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that a residential building cannot be permitted to be used for a non-residential purposes. This was confirmed by the appellate Court. But the High Court took a different view. It held that Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act is not subject to Section 25 and therefore the question whether the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide has to be decided apart from the provisions of Sec. 25 read as under :-

25 (1) A landlord shall not use or permit to be used for non-residential purpose any premises which on the date of the coming into operation of this act were used for a residential purpose.

(2) Any land-lord who contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both.

The Supreme Court held that a residential building cannot be permitted to be used for a non-residential purpose. It has observed.;

In the light of S. 25 (1) granting a decree to the respondent for possession of the residential premises on the ground that it requires those premises for a non-residential purpose is to part the way for its prosecution and punishment u/s 25 (1). In fact, such a decree could be self defeating because, whereas the decree shall have been passed on the ground that the respondent requires the premises for a non-residential purpose it will not be able to use those premises for the purpose for which the decree was granted save on pain of prosecution.

It was also held that a requirement which runs in the tenth of Section 25 and which, if established may throw the landlord open to the risk of a prosecution cannot be called reasonable. In that context the Supreme Court held as under:--

Therefore if the respondent shall have failed, it is not because Section 25 overrides Section 13 (1) but because of its failure to prove the reasonableness of its requirement. Whether the requirement of the landlord is reasonable or not is to be judged from all the facts and circumstances of the case and a highly relevant circumstances bearing on the reasonableness of the landlord''s requirement is that the purpose for which the possession is sought is a purpose for which the premises cannot be used give on pain of penal consequence. Courts ought not to construe a statute in a manner which will encourage the breach of any of its provisions and, most certainly, a decree ought not to be passed which, if honoured, will attempt penal consequences. To pass a decree in favour of the respondent on the grounds required by the High Court to invite the respondent to admit a breach of the statutory injunction contained, in S. 25 (1).

Taking that view the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition of the landlord. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this plan, as such, was not specifically taken in the counter. The tanant is occupying the residental premises and the tanancy is sought to be terminated for personal occupation of the land-lady''s family. It is contended that if the landlady wants to use the ground floor for non-residential purpose the same could not be used without obtaining the necessary permission u/s 18 of the Rent Control Act. It is true that the land-lady wanted to use the portion on the ground floor as godown for keeping beedi leaves if this act of using to as godown is treated as a non-residential purpose, the landlady may apply for the necessary pension u/s 18 of the Act, if she does not obtain such a permission alone will read the consequences therefor. The questions whether the land-lady requires the premises for keeping the beedi leaves and whether any permission u/s 18 is needed would depend upon the facts of each case. When the stage making it obligatory on the part of the land-lady to seek the permission u/s 18 of the Act has not reached in this case, it is unnecessary for me to go into that question more so in the face of the finding of the lower Court that the land-lady wanted to utilise the premises both for her residential purpose and business purpose. It all depends upon the portions of the building some of which are earmarked for purposes of residential in nature and some of which for non-residential. The land-lady is certainly entitled to apportion her building according to her needs into residential and nonresidential. The submission that without prior permission, u/s 18 of the Act no eviction of the tenant could be sought for in my view, has no force for the reason that the landlady sought additional accommodation on the ground that the ground floor occupied by her was not sufficient for accommodating that members of her family. The decision in Bapubhai Mohanbhai Vs. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir, has no application to the facts of the present case. There is a special provision in section 18 of the A. P. Rent Control Act for conversion of residential premises into non-residential and vice versa. But there is not such corresponding provision in the Bombay Rent Control Act out of which the above decision relied upon has emanated. That apart in the case relied upon the premises for which the tenant was sought to be evicted was a residential purpose which was not permissible under the Bombay Rent Control Act. In the case on hand the tenant is sought to be evicted from a residential premises for a residential purpose on the ground of want of additional, accommodation. Therefore, the principle enuncited in Bapubhai Mohanbhai Vs. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir, has no application to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that if the landlady warns to seek permission for the necessary conversion or residential into nonresidential, the tenant may not be evicted till that conversion takes place. I have already stated that it all depends upon the nature of adjustment of the premises, which the land-lady may ultimately seek as to which portion she wants to remain for residential purpose. This will be only after the land-lady takes a final decision in the matter after the tenant has vacated the premises. If she does not seek for the necessary permission. It is only she that faces the consequences therefor. For that purpose the eviction of the tenant need not be stayed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed and the parties will bear their own costs in this revision. Time for eviction is three months from today.