BALADASU Vs. YEKKALA PANDURANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises under the A P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The petitioners are landlords. The petition was filed under the Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondt from the Schedule shop on the basis of bonafide requirements. The anterior litigation culminating in this petition has to be itated. The tenant took the premises on a monthly rent of Ri. 150-on a stipulated tenancy for a period of one year with an option to continue for another year on the same terms and conditions. The eldest son of the landlord carried on business at Mangalagiri as Druggist and Chemist and that as that business did not flourish, he closed the business and came to Guntur to start the business. The schedule shop is mott suitable for the said business and the joint family of the petitioners has no other shop suitable and available at Guntur. According to the terms of the tenancy agreement, the tenant has to vacate the premises by 29-9-1973. As the tenant did not vacate, notice was issued through the advocate on 29-9-1974 to vacate the premises. A reply has been sent by the tenant denying the obligation to vacate the premise and did not vacate. In the counter filed by the respondent it is stated that the monthly rent of Rs. ISO/- agreed upon is gexhorhitant and a separate petition is also filed for fixation of fair rent. The terms of the agreement are penal rind the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 2,000/- paid is deposit free of interest. In view of this, the respondent made a request for reduction of the rent to which the petitioner stated that he was considering to issue a registered notice for vacating the premises. Thereupon the respondent had to give a reply stating the true state of affairs. The bona fide requirement for opening a medical shop by Audinarayana is not true and the shop adjoining the shop in question it leased out by the landlord to D.C.M. shop and the upstair premises was also let out subsequent to the leasing out of the schedule premises to the respondent. Further .there is a vacant shop room with roof and two room without roofing which can easily be contused into shop rooms by merely pafttof toofr on the name buillding in which the postion schedule shop is situated. All these shops are adjacent to one soother. On this petition the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 14.3.1977. On appeal in R.C.A 16/1977 the appellate authority by an order dated 23,10-1977 remanded the matter with a direction to receive the documents filed by the appellant-tenant subject to proof and relevancy and consider the matter afresh. After remand the landlord filed additional petition saying that he is the owner of the shop room wherein the properties of Sri Siva and Company were kept under the custody of the Commisioner appointed by the Sub-Court, Guntur in O.S. 186/1977 and the possession of the said shop was not delivered to him and further the said shop is too big to run medical shop and the schedule shop is suited for the medical business. Thereupon the additional counter was filed by the tenant stating that the petitioner secured alternate accommodation by taking delivary of the shop previous occupied by Siva and Company and the right of the petitioner to evict the respondents lost in view of the inhibition in Sec. 10 (3) (iii) of the Act. It was stated that the resdondent has no objection to shift into that shop on payment of fair and responsible rent if the petitioner agree to the same. On these pleadings the Rent Controller framed the following point for consideration :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the right to possession without actual occupation does not inhabit the application for bonafide requirement and in any event the second proviso to Sec 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act interdicts the plea of bonafide requirement if the possession of the other premises is obtained on the plea of bonafide requirement only and as the eviction of the other shop was ordered on the ground of subletting, this petition for bonafide requirement is not barred. It is also contended that the other shop (previously occupied by Siva & Co.,) is not suitable for medical shop as It is too big.

(3.) Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is a sprawling provision pertaining essentially to the evlction of the tenant and safeguards to the landlord and tenant. Sub-sections 1 to 3 contain different programmes for eviction. Sub-secttons 1 and 2 make the tenant vulnerable for eviction in the event of certain lapses and infractions on the part of the tenant. Sub-section 3 enablesthe landlord to obtain eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for self occupation for residence or carrying on business. Sub-sections 4 to 8 contain certain safeguards to the landlord as well as the tenant. The landlord is entitled for recovery of possession of let out premises if he is not eccupaying a residential or non-residential building in the city which is his owi or entitled to the possession under this Act, or otherwise. The ssenco of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere obtaining possession is not sufficient to bar the landlord for getting eviction but the actual occupation is an essential requisite. The inspiration for this contention appears to be the dichotomy kept between occupation and possession in Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii)IJacked up by distinct and separate connotation attributable to occupation and possession in Sec. 10 (5) of the Act. It is true that the possession and occupation are not used with reference to the same situation and they cannot be considered synonymous. Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) seeks to negative the plea of bonafide requirement if the landlord is either occupying his own building, or entitled to possession of his building. The expression "of which" following the expression "possession" in Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) indicates the contingency of the landlord being entitled to possession of his own building by the operation of the provision of the Act or otherwise and the. situation contemplated in the later limb is possession only short of actual occupation. Sec. 10 (3) enables the tenant to revert to possession of the building in the event of the landlord failing to occupy the premises within the time stipulated therein after obtaining possession. In this provision the expression "possession" is used with reference to getting possession pursuant to an order under sub-sec. 3 of the Act and the expression "occupation" is used with reference to actual occupation by the landlord. This provision is intended to ensure the implementation of the bonafide requirement pleaded for eviction under Sec. 10 (3). The contentn of the framed counsel leads to incongruous result of landlord manipulating to abstain from occupying to get over the bar contained in Section 10 (3) (a) (iii). The Contention founded upon second proviso to Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) is equally untenable. The second proviso is intended to short circuit the repetitive petitions for boaafide requirement. In the event of the landlord getting possession on the plea of bonafide requirement he cannot agin seek for eviction of another building on the same plea. The contention that the possession of the premises pursuant to eviction on the grounds other than bonafide requirement does not bar the petition for bonafide requirement cannot be spelt out from the proviso and such interpretation of an enabling nature militates against the object of the proviso and further the proviso is intended to cut at the generality in Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) and specifically provided for halting recurrence of petitions for bonafide requirement.