VEMANA VEERABHADRUDU Vs. KANCHERLA RAMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition is the tenant of a non-residential building bearing Municipal Door No. 6/205 situate in Rajahmundry. The respondent-landlord is the owner of two other non-residential buildings, 6/185 and 6/206. Further, he took on lease a non-residential premises bearing Municipal Door No. 6/207. The respondent was evicted from the occupation of the premises bearing Municipal Door No. 6/207, as per the order of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1954. Thereupon he filed an application (H.R.C.M.P.No. 116 of 1954) under section 7. Clause 3 (a) (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from Door No. 6/205, on two grounds, namely, that he required it for his own occupation, and that the tenant was liable to eviction by reason of his sub-letting the premises without the landlord's knowledge and consent. The Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, by order, dated 30th November, 1954, held that the respondent-landlord needed the premises in question for his personal occupation and for remodelling his godown's. He, therefore, directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises on or before 15th February, 1955. An appeal was filed by the tenant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Rajahmundhry, in C.M.A. No. 5 off 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge held that inasmuch as the landlord admittedly owned and was in occupation of two godown's other than the one in the occupation of the tenant for carrying on his business, he was not entitled to have an order for eviction passed against the tenant. He found further, that there was no sub-letting by the tenant as alleged by the landlord. Against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the landlord filed a revision under section 12 (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, before the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The learned District Judge held that even though the landlord owned two other godown's bearing Municipal Door Nos. 6/185 and 6/206, he required 6/205 for his use and that further under sub-section 3 (c) of section 7, the landlord who occupied only a portion of a building can apply to the Controller for being placed in possession of the remaining part of the building if he required additional accommodation for his residential purpose for the purposes of the business which he is carrying on. In tenant to quit the premises by 1st of March, 1956. It is against that order that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. G. Chandrasekhara Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised before me three contention. First, that on the facts found, viz., that the landlord owns two other godown's, the order of eviction is manifestly opposed to the terms of section 7, clause 3 (a) (iii), secondly that the premises bearing Municipal Door No. 6/205 is not a part of a building within the meaning of section 7 (3) (c)of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and thirdly, that if the case should fall under section 7 (3) (c), it was necessary for the Court to determine whether the hardship caused to the tenant by granting the application of the landlord for eviction will out-weigh the advantage to the landlord within the meaning of the first proviso to section 7 (3) (c).

(3.) Sri T. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the learned District Judge found, as a fact, that without the premises in question, viz., 6/205, the landlord could not effectively carry on his business, and in view of that finding no interference is called for in the present revision petition. He further contended that section 7 (3) (a) (iii) should be interpreted liberally and the mere fact of the landlord possessing other godown's should not bar an application for eviction if the other godown's are not suitable or effective for carrying on his business.