KARUMURI APPALARAJU Vs. CHALLA SAMBURATNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an order made by the District Judge, West Godavari, in an application for eviction, under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). The facts which have given rise to this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. There is a small room which originally served as a passage, attached to the residential portion of the respondent's house situated within the limits of the Palacol Municipality, to which the provisions of the Act have been made applicable. On the 2nd November, 1946, the respondent leased out this room to the petitioner for the purpose of his cloth business. There is no document evidencing the lease ; but it is common ground that the lease was for a period of four years on a monthly rental of Rs. 15. It was agreed between the parties that if the lease was extended for a further period, the petitioner should pay an increased rent of Rs. 30 per month.

(2.) The landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller, Narsapur, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on a two-fold ground: (1) that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent, and (2) that he required the premises for his own occupation. The proceeding for eviction, which was thus initiated before the Rent Controller, had a chequered career. For the present purpose, it is not necessary to trace the history of that proceeding except to state that eventually the Rent Controller found that the petitioner had not committed default in the payment of rent. He, however, held that the landlord required the premises for his personal occupation and accordingly made an order for eviction. The appellate authority concurred with the finding on the first question, but on the second he held that the premises having been let out for non-residential purposes, namely, for housing a cloth shop, the landlord could not ask for possession of the premises for purposes of his residence. In revision, the District Judge, West Godavari, on a consideration of the material provisions of the Act, held that the landlord could seek recovery of possession of any portion of his house even if it was leased out for a non-residential purpose. He found that having regard to the situation of the room, which was earlier being used as a passage, the landlord's requirement was bona fide. Accordingly, he made an ordei for possession in favour of the landlord.

(3.) It is argued by Mr. Suryanarayanamurthy, learned counsel for the tenant, that in respect of the portion of a house let out for non-residential purposes, the landlord cannot ask for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he requiries it for residential purposes. Now, section 7 of the Act is designed to give security of tenure to occupants of buildings situated within certain cities and towns and restricts the right of landlords to recover possession of such buildings. Sub-section (2) of section 7 enumerates the various grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant. Broadly speaking, those grounds are non-payment of rent, sub-letting in whole or in part, using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which the building was let, acts of waste, nuisance, non-occupation for the period specified without reasonable cause and denial of title of the landlord. The provisions of section 7 which are material for the purposes of this case may now be set out.