Skip to content


K. Parasuramaiah Vs. Pokurl Lakshmamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 871 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1965AP220
ActsAndhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 10(3)
AppellantK. Parasuramaiah
RespondentPokurl Lakshmamma
Appellant AdvocateT. Veerabhadrayya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateY.B. Tatarao, Adv.
Excerpt:
tenancy - eviction - section 10 (3) of andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 - whether landlord occupying part of building for residential purpose can seek eviction of other part for non-residential purpose and vice-versa - landlord at liberty to readjust his accommodation and seek eviction of tenant from other part - held, if requirement established bona fide tenant liable to vacate irrespective of requirement being for residential or non-residential purpose. - .....building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.' on this point two decisions of this court are placed before me. one is the decision in shajehan saheb v. yakub khan saheb, (1962) 1 andh wr 205 at p. 210 in which it is held that :' ................................... the landlord cannot evict a tenant from a residential building when he required it for a non-residential purpose ; similarly, he could only evict a tenant from a portion of the building which is used for non-residential purpose by the tenant, only if he required that portion for non-residential purpose and not when he required for residential purpose.' the learned judge further.....
Judgment:

Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.

(1) The question that arise for determination in this case is one under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 which is as follows :

'A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.'

On this point two decisions of this court are placed before me. One is the decision in Shajehan Saheb v. Yakub Khan Saheb, (1962) 1 Andh WR 205 at p. 210 in which it is held that :

' ................................... The landlord cannot evict a tenant from a residential building when he required it for a non-residential purpose ; similarly, he could only evict a tenant from a portion of the building which is used for non-residential purpose by the tenant, only if he required that portion for non-residential purpose and not when he required for residential purpose.'

The learned Judge further held that :

' .............................. if the portion of the building in the occupation of the tenant is used for residential purpose, the landlord could evict him only if he required that portion for a residential purpose.'

On the other hand, Mr. Y. B. Tatarao, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Appalaraju v. Samburatnamurthy, 1961-2 Andh WR 235 wherein another learned Judge took a contrary view. It may be mentioned here that in the former decision, this decision is not referred to. In view of this conflict, I direct that the Civil Revision Petition be posted before a Bench of two Judges under R. 1 of Appellate Side Rules.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //