MOHAMMAD AZIZUDDIN Vs. AZIZ HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Ansari, J., having regard to the importance of the question involved. The respondents, who are brothers, have applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises which was gifted to them by their grandfather under a registered deed of gift. In their application, they stated that, as they have no houses of their own, they wanted to demolish the suit property and re-build a three-storeyed building with the object of living in the first two floors and letting out the third floor. It may be stated that the applicant before us does not reside in the suit premises which is only a site on which a petrol-bunk had been erected and with which is attached a few rooms in which the chowkidar of the petitioner resides. This premises was let out to the petitioner in 1349-F. for five years, after the termination of which the petitioner continued the lease as a tenant-at-will from month to month. The petitioner challenged the bona fides of the application on the ground that the respondents did not really require it for their residential purposes, that in fact by this device they wanted to increase the rent of the petitioner and that they had even attempted to sell the same. He further stated that he had invested about Rs.15,000 on a petrol-bunk and that any order evicting him would put him to a loss of Rs. 30,000. Though in his counter, the petitioner did not challenge the title of the respondents to the suit premises, his advocate before the Rent Controller appeared to have challenged the joint ownership of the respondents and tried to cast a cloud on their title. But having regard to their written admission in the counter, that contention of the learned counsel was held to be without force. The Rent Controller, on a very full and comprehensive enquiry, and after considering every objection that could conceivably be raised by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petition was a bona fide one and that the respondents required the premises for the purpose of reconstructing a new building which they had means to do and that as they had no houses of their own in the City , their claim to reside in it after reconstruction was valid. Against the order of ejectment , the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, who maintained the order and dismissed the petitioner's appeal.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner contends that under the provisions of section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 Act (XX of 1954) the respondents could either ask for eviction of the petitioner under section 15 (3) (a) (i) on the ground that they have no residential house in the city and that they require it for their own occupation ; or, that they desire to carry out the essential repairs or alterations to the house which cannot be made without the tenant vacating the house and they bona fide require the house for the purpose of building or re-building or for making substantial additions which cannot be made without the tenant vacating the house. The contention is that the respondents could ask for eviction under one or other of these grounds. In other words, it would amount to this namely, that the several grounds specified in sub-section (3) of section 15 for evicting a tenant are mutually exclusive and cannot be read together. That is, his case must come under any one of the grounds. It is therefore submitted that the landlord cannot base his claim on more than one ground for eviction nor could the relief be asked or granted on the cumulative effect of two or more grounds. For a proper appreciation of this contention, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of section 15 (3) which are set out below :--

(3.) An examination of clause (e) of section 15 (3) would show that the Controller could only grant the relief under clause (a) (i) to (iv) if the claim of the landlord is bona fide. If the landlord seeks to come under section 15 (3) (a) (i), though he may have no other residential house in the city, he should still establish his bonafide requirement. The landlord can get an order of eviction under this clause on the following grounds, namely, (1) that he has no other residential house in the city ; (2) that he requires the premises ; (3) that such requirement was for his own occupation ; and (4) that such requirement was bonafide. The requirement must be one which shows need and not a mere wish or convenience or fancy.