VIDAVATHI BAI Vs. SHANKELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If the golden rule of interpretation that the ordinary meaning of the words used by the statute and the grammatical sense thereof should be adhered to, there could be little doubt that a landlord already in occupation of a non-residential building of which he is the owner or to the possession of which he is entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the 'Act') or otherwise, could not invoke Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of ' the Act for eviction of a tenant in occupation of another non-residential building belonging to him (the landlord) in the sa me city, town or village, for the purpose of business which he (the landlord) is carrying on or for the purpose of a business which he bona fide proposes to commence. A Division Bench consisting of Basi Reddy, J., and Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., (as he than was), however, took a contrary view in Balaiah's case 1. P.A. Choudary, J , before ,vhom this revision petition was posted for hearing earlier, doubted the correctness of the ruling of the said Division Bench; hence, on reference, this is before this Full Bench.

(2.) Now the facts in brief. The first respondent herein (Shankarlal),hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord', in occupation of non-residential building No. 4-5-880, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad., filed R C. No. 211 of 1976 on the file of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, to evict Puranmal (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant,) from another non-residential building, Mulgi No. 4-5-879 owned by him(landlord) in the occupation of the tenant situate in the same city, under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iiij (b) of the Act, on the ground that it was bona fide required by him for his personal business as his major son, Babulal, educated but unemployed, wanted to commence a new business in the said premises. The tenant resisted the claim for eviction contending, inter alia, that the landlord who was in occupat on of the non-residential building No. 4-5-880 was not entitled to recover possession of the non-residential building No. 4-5-879 in his (tenant's) occupation in the very same city. The Rent Controller accepting the contention of the tenant, dismissed the application for eviction. The matter was carried in appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabdd (R.A. No. 289/79) by the landlord. During the pendency of the appeal, Puranmal (the tenant; died. His legal representatives, his widow and two sons, were impleaded as supplemental respondents 2 to 4. The appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to put the landlord back into possession of the premises on two grounds : (i) that the appellant bona fide required the mulgi for commencing the business of his son, Babulal, and (ii) that the supplemental respondents 2 to 4 were not entitled to protection under the Act, holding that they were not tenants as defined in Sec. 2 (ix) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, two of the legal representatives of the said Purnamal, viz., supplemental respondents 2 and 3 before the appellate authority, have filed this revision under Section 22 of the Act: in the revision, the 4th supplemental respondent, one of the sons of the deceased Purnmal, is shown as the second respondent,

(3.) Before embarking upon the discussion on the main question, wemay dispose of the short point whether the widow and sons of Puranmal, the original tenant, are entitled to protection from being evicted from the premises. Section 2 (ix) of the Act reads as follows :