A. SATYANARAYAN SHAH versus M. YADIGIRI

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 21-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A. SATYANARAYAN SHAH 
A, 
v. 
M. YADIGIRI 
NOVEMBER 21, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: 
Ss.2(iii) and I 0(3) (a)(iii)- 'Building '-A non-residential wooden C 
structure-Landlord filed petition for eviction of tenant from the land and the 
structure put thereon on the ground o/bona fide requirement-Tenant admitting 
the tenancy on land only and claiming ownership of the structure standing 
thereon-Rent Controller held the land alongwith the structure to have been 
· let out to the tenant but did not accept the plea ofbonafide requirement-On 
appeal the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court accepted the ground of D 
bonafide requirement also--However, High Court in revision, after the matter 
was remitted to it by Supreme Court, accepted the plea of tenant that the 
wooden structure standing on the land did not fall within the meaning of 
'building' as defined in clause (iii) of Section 2 and the proceedings suffered 
from want of jurisdiction, and directed the eviction proceedings to be E 
dismissed-Held, the term 'building' has to be interpreted liberally and not 
narro~vly-A wooden structure which is in the nature of a permanent structure 
standing on the land and which has walls and roofs though made of wood, 
would fall within the definition of building as defined in clause (iii) of Section 
2- In the context in which the term 'building' has been used and keeping in 
view the purpose of the Act, the term 'building', as defined, ought to be so F 
interpreted as to include therein a structure having some sort of pern1anency 
and capable of being used for residential or non-residential purpose-Chief 
Judge, City Small Causes Court has recorded a finding that the structure is 
a permanent structure and it belongs to landlord-Whether the wooden 
structure forming subject matter of tenancy premises fell within the definition G 
of building or not is a mixed question of law and fact-High court erred in 
holding the said structure falling outside the definition of building and in 
.allowing the plea at such belated stage in revision-Judgment of High Court set aside. 
Suryakumar Govindjee v. Krishnammal and Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 343 
relied on. 
313 
H 
A 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Ashok Kapil v. Sana. Ullah( dead) and Ors., (1996] 6 SCC 342, referred 
to. 
Victoria City Corporation v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, (1921) 2 AC 
384, referred to. 
B 
Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn.), referred to. 
Revision-Raising of fresh plea-Tenant raising, for the first time in 
revision a plea that the wooden structure was not 'building' within the meaning 
of s.2(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, and 
the proceedings, therefore, did not lay before the Rent Control/er-High Court 
C accepting the plea and dismissing eviction petition-Held, the plea was not 
taken in the wri_tten statement nor up to the stage a/Supreme Court in the first 
round of litigation-It should not have been allowed to be raised for the first 
time before the High Court in the revision petition a.nd that too at such a 
belated stage. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1998 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2317 of 1994. 
E 
Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shalini Gupta and Mohit Chaudhary for S.K. 
Mehta for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant is a landlord, who having lost from the High Court in a 
F proceeding for eviction of tenant, has come up in appeal. The litigation has 
a chequered history. A brief resume of events would suffice. 
The suit premises consists of a piece of land over which stands a 
wooden structure of the dimension of 5'x3.8'. The eviction was sought for on 
G the ground available under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of 
Section 10 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 
(hereinafter "the Act" for short), which provides inter alia for a non-residential 
building being directed to be vacated by the tenant and the landlord being put 
in possession of the same if the same was required by the landlord for the 
purpose of a business bonafide proposed to be commenced by the landlord 
H and the landlord was not in possession of any other non-residential building. 
-
• 
A.S. SHAH v. M. Y ADIGIRI 
315 
The proceedings were initiated before the Controller. Before t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.