D DEVAJI Vs. K SUDARASHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 10 (3 (a) (iii) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960, for short 'the Act' on the ground of bona fide requirement of the demised building. The Rent Controller directed eviction of the appellant. On appeal, the Principal Subordinate Judge reversed the decree holding that the respondent had several non-residential buildings as well as shops in K. V. R. Swamy Road and other buildings in Rajahmundary town. As the demand for enhancement of rent from Rs. 100. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 p. m. , though the appellant had agreed to enhance to Rs. 300. 00 per month, was not agreed, the respondent filed the application for eviction. Therefore, it smacked of bona fides. On revision under Section 122, the High court reversed the appellate court's order and confirmed the decree of the trial court. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The question of law that arises in this case is the interpretation of Section 10 (3 (a) (iii) of the Act which reads thus :

(3.) The learned Single Judge placed reliance on Balaiah v. Chandoor Lachaiah wherein the division bench held that when a landlord, who is in occupation of a non-residential building in a city, town or village, requires another non-residential building of his own in the same city, town or village, as the case may be, from his tenant, for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on which he can be shifting or for expansion of the business which he is carrying on or for commencing a new business, he can successfully claim eviction of his tenant, if he is able to satisfy the Rent Controller that the nonresidential building which he is occupying is not sufficient or 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, in the circumstances of the case become inevitable. It would be open to him to prove that the non-residential building which he is occupying is not exclusively his own or that he is not entitled to its exclusive possession. Any one of the above mentioned cases would fall within the ambit of Section 10 (3 (a) (iii) of the Act. This view was consistently being followed. The learned Single Judge too followed the view and allowed the revision.