MANOHAR CHOWLA Vs. SHAIR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Landlord. The respondent is his tenant. The petitioner filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent before the Rent Controller, Nirmal, under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act. hereinafter called the Act. on the ground that he bona fide needs the premises for his personal occupation as well as for starting a business. It is not disputed that it is a non-residential building and it was let out to the respondent where he is doing some business. The respondent resisted the petition by contending that the petitioner was not the Landlord, his claim was not bona fide and since the premises was non-residential he cannot claim it partly for residential and partly for non-residential purposes. The Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was the Landlord, he bona fide needs the premises for starting the business as well as for his personal occupation and there was no prohibition in the Act for a Landlord from claiming the non-residential premises both for his non-residential as well as residential purposes. He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the respondent. Against his order the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Adilabad. The learned Judge allowed the appeal holding that under Sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the Act, the Landlord could claim the occupation of a non-residential building if it is only for his non-residential purpose. He further held that the petitioner had no previous experience and he did not obtain any licence to start a business. He upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the petitioner was the owner of the premises. Nevertheless, in view of his other findings, he dismissed the petition for eviction; questioning his order the petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) In this revision it is submitted by Sri Narasimha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no prohibition in the Act for a Landlord claiming occupation of his non-residential building both for his residential and non-residential purposes. I agree with him. Sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, defines a building as meaning any house or part of a house let separately for residential or non-residential purposes. Sub-section 3 of Section 10 deals with non-residential building. Under Sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the Act a Landlord can apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the Landlord in possession of a non-residential building if the Landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled, whether under the Act or otherwise, (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application, or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the Landlord bona fide proposes to commence. Clause (c), Sub-section 3 of Section 10 says that a Landlord who is occupying only a part of a building whether residential or non-residential, may apply to the Controller, for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the Landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.

(3.) These provisions do not show that the Landlord cannot seek possession of a non-residential building both for his residential occupation as well as for starting a business. I do not find any such prohibition in the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent is not able to place before me any decision taking a contrary view. Therefore, I do not agree with the finding of the District Judge that a Landlord cannot recover a non-residential building partly for his residence and partly for his business.