CHAMPALAL BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed questioning the constitutional vires of Section 10(2)(v) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act.")

(2.) The petitioner was a tenant of non-residential premises situated at Topkhana Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad, of which, the 3rd respondent is the owner and was the landlady. The 3rd respondent had instituted proceedings for eviction of the petitioner in RC No.2091 of 1986 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad pleading several grounds including that of the petitioner's securing alternative accommodation which is a ground available under Section 10(2)(v) of the Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller had found only the said ground of alternative accommodation for passing his order for eviction of the petitioner from the premises and the same was upheld in appeal by the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad. The same was questioned in a revision to the High Court, but the order of eviction was upheld and even the Apex Court had confirmed the order of the High Court. Now, as a last resort, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the above provision of the Rent Control Act.

(3.) Mr. Gopal G. Naik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the tenant enjoys statutory protection and that such statutory protection should be common to all the citizens in India and it cannot be separate and distinct for each and every State. He took us to the statutes of some other States in India and submits that the same thing should be read into the A.P. Rent Control Act. He also submits that unfettered discretion is granted to the Courts to interpret what is alternative accommodation and it is not stated with precision in the Rent Control Act as to what factors govern such alternative accommodation for evicting the tenant. These arguments are based on the touch-stone of Article 14 of Indian Constitution. The other ground is Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution on the premise that the petitioner is trading in the premises and as such, his eviction on the basis of alternative accommodation offends his fundamental right to carry on his trade guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.