J V RAJ Vs. P SIVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the order of the Government exempting from the operation of the provisions of section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called "the Act"), the premises No. 3-5-386 at Narayanaguda in Hyderabad, is challenged, The facts are not in controversy. The petitioner has been.occupying the said premises from 1959 and has a maternity and nursing home there. After the 1st respondent, who is also a doctor, purchased the premises, he filed a petition before the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he owned no other house and that he requires it for his bonafide residence. The petitioner opposed the eviction proceedings on the ground that since the premises was a non-residential building, within the meaning of Sec. 10 of the Act, she could not be evicted on any grounds other than those specified in Sec. 10 and that requirement for bonafide residence is not one of such grounds. It may be stated that before the Rent Controller, the question of the 1st Respondent requiring the house for his bonafide residence was not challenged. The Renr Controller found that the 1st respondent required it for his bona fide residence, he not having any other building, and ordered eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr, Gopal Dass Verma vs. Dr. Bharadwaj holding that a premises used for nursing home or maternity home is a non-residential premises, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction merely on that ground. The 1st respondent thereafter applied to the Government under Sec. 26 for exemption of his house from the provisions of Sec. 10. The Government gave notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the representations made by her notified the exemption in G.O. Ms No. 24 G. A. D. dated 9-1-1964.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Raghava Rao, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in P. J. Irani v. State of Madras as also a judgment of the Madras High Court in Abdul Subhan Sahib & Sons v. State of Madras contends that once a premises has been used for non-residental purposes, it cannot be exempted under sec, 26 because to do so would be to contra" vene the provisions of the statute inasmuch as the provisions of that statute do not permit eviction on the ground that the house is required for bona fide residential purposes. He also contends that the notification travels beyond the obj ect and purpose of the statute. Lastly he contends that the notification does not give any reasons for exempting the 1st respondent's house from the provisions of the Act.

(3.) I may at once state that the first two grounds are not tenable either on a reading of the provisions of the Act or on authority, It is true that section 10 does not contemplate eviction of a tenant occupying a non-residential building on the ground chat it is required bona fide for residential purposes; but it is for this purpose that Sec. 26 enacted a power to exempt any of the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the very case on which the petitioner relies, namely, P. J. Irani v. State of Madras which is incidentally an appeal from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Globe Theatres Ltd., v. State of Madras stated the purpose of the Act at page 1737 as follows:-