SYED YUNUS Vs. NAZIRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises in this rent revision by the tenant is whether under the provisions of Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the A.P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act the landlady is entitled to seek the eviction of the tenant occupying a portion of the building, both as residential as well as non-residential, and the landlady herself being in occupation of the other portion, on the ground that she requires it as additional accommodation for residental purpose only. Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act reads as under:

(2.) The question posed should not detain long for the reason that a Division Bench of this Court in Parasuramiah vs. Lakshmamma held: "For the purposes of cl. (c) it is not necessary that the additional accommodation sought by the landlord should be for the same purpose for which the building was let out. While under Sec. 10 (3) (a) of the Act the landlord cannot obtain the eviction of his tenant from a residential building unless he wants it for his own residence and in case of a non-residential building unless he wants it for purposes of his busieess, sub-clause (c) of Section 10 (3) does not contain any such limitation. Under sub-clause (c) if the landlord satisfies the Controller that he wants additional accommodation in the same building, a portion of which is already under his occupation, it is open to him to readjust the additional accommodation in the manner convenient to him and it cannot be insisted that the additional accommodation sought for should be used by the landlord for the same purpose for which the tenant sought to be evicted was using it. The purpose of non-obstante clause appears to be clearly that the entire cl. (a) would not apply to a case falling within the ambit of cl. (c). I am in complete agreement with the reasoning of the decision and with respect I follow the same.

(3.) In the case on hand the facts which are not in dispute are, the respondent landlady Jet out a portion of the premises of her building where she is herself residing, to the tenant-petitioner herein for residential purpose initially. After some time, the front portion was sought to be used for non-residental purpose which was"found by the court below with the consent of the landlady herself. Thereafter the landlady got married and gave birth to a child. It is on that ground she applied for eviction of ihe tenant herein under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act as she required additional accommodation. She claimed the entire premises for the purpose of residential occupation only. It is in these circumstances the lower courts considering the provisions enacted under Sec. 10 (3) (c) held that it is competent for the landlady to requisition the premises for residential purpose only, though the tenant is using it both for residential as well as non-residential purposes.