GUMPENA RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. KOTTURU RAMAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the Judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 96 of 1962, allowing the appeal of the respondent -landlord against the order of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada in H.R.C. No. 123/62, dismissing the application filed by the Respondent against the petitioners herein under section 10(2) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, asking for the ejectment of the tenant. Mr. Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners (tenants) contended that the building in question was taken on lease for running the business of a 'lodging house' and therefore the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the building was not taken on lease for carrying on a business and the fact it is used as a lodging house brings it within the meaning of a residential building.

(2.) TO appreciate the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners, the relevant facts may be stated. The case of the respondent for the eviction of his tenants (petitioners) was rested on two grounds: (1) that the building was required for his personal occupation; and (2) that the tenants had committed willful default in payment of rents. The terms of the agreement provided for payment of rent every month. The petitioners contested the petition alleging that they were not willful defaulters, that the application was not bona fide as it was not required for the personal use and occupation of the landlord, and that therefore they were not liable to be evicted. The Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence held against the landlord on both the points and dismissed the petition. Then the matter was carried in appeal to the appellate authority, i.e., the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal on 17th August, 1963 holding that the building was required by the landlord for his personal occupation, although he affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that there was no willful default. Aggrieved by the order in appeal the tenants preferred a revision, C.R.P. No. 1383/63 and made an application (C.M.P. No. 9967/65) for amendment of the counter for adding an allegation that the petition filed by the landlord for eviction is not maintainable under sections 10(3)(a) and 1(a) as the premises was leased out to the tenants for non -residential purposes. Sharfuddin, J., allowed the revision and remitted the case to the appellate Court for disposal afresh giving the following directions:

(3.) TO make it residential the premises must have been let as a place of dwelling an expression which normally include all the major activities of life particularly sleeping, cooking and feeding and of all these sleeping seems to be the most important one. If the premises are used for nothing except sleeping or merely as bed rooms, then it would be essentially a residential building. The premises used for business, trade, or professional purposes cannot be termed as a residential building or a dwelling house. The predominant or dominant user of the building for a particular purpose will determine the character of the building. In Harnam Singh v. Jamal Pirbhai L.R., (1951) A.C. 688, the Privy Council in an appeal from the Eastern Africa Court of Appeal laid the following test for differentiating a dwelling house from a business house: