BODDU NARAYANAMMA versus SRI VENKATARAMA ALUMINIUM CO. AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 21-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BODDU NARAYANAMMA 
v. 
SRI VENKATARAMA ALUMINIUM CO. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
C 1960 : Sec. JO(J)(a)(i)(b )-Eviction petition-Maintainability of-Premises 
let out under a composite lease consisting residential and non-residential 
p01tion-Eviction petition on the ground of bona tide requirement for 
residence-Dismissed as not maintainable-Validity of-Held, eviction peti-
tion of appellant-landlady maintainable under Sec. JO(J)(a)(i)(b) of the 
Act-Landlady cannot be left out without any remedy for eviction under a 
D composite lease-Premises let out under composite lease has to be considered 
either as residential or non-residential premises having regard to the dominant 
purpose of lease and primary use of the buildinfj-011 facts, the demised 
building has to be treated as a residential buildinE,-Bona tide requirement 
having been established the landlady entitled to vacant possession of the 
E demised building. 
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952: Sec. 13(I)(e}-Held not in 
lzaec verba with Sec. 10(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent 
and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 
F 
Legal Maxim-{Jbi jus ibi remedium-Applicability of 
G 
Appellant-landlady had let ont nnder a composite lease, premises 
comprising of residential and non-residential portion to respondent-
tenant. She filed a petition under Sec. 10(3)(a)(i)(b) of the Andhra 
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, on the 
ground of bona fide requirement for personal residence. The said eviction 
petition was dismissed by Rent Controller holding that the requirement 
of appellant was not bona fide and that the eviction petition was not 
maintainable. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings 
of the Rent Controller holding that the requirement of appellant was bona 
H fide and eviction petition maintainable. However, on revision, High Court 
20 
< 
-
.. 
BODDU NARAYANAMMAv. VENKATARAMMAALUMINIUM CO. 
21 
while confirming the finding that the requirement was bona fide, set aside A 
the order of Appellate Authority holding that the eviction petition was 
not maintainable. Aggrieved, appellant-landlady has preferred the present 
appeal. 
On behalf of appellant-landlady it was contended that the building 
as a whole is a residential one and the purpose for which a portion of it 
is used cannot really change its nature; therefore, High Court erred in 
holding that in respect of a composite lease for residential and non-
residential purposes, the eviction petition filed for personal occupation 
of the appellant was not maintainable; she cannot be rendered remediless 
B 
and the statutory lease cannot be converted into a lease in perpetuity on 
C 
the ground that there was no provision under the Act to seek eviction in 
case of a composite lease. 
On behalf of respondent-tenant it was contended that on the ground 
of bona fide personal requirement of residence of the appellant, eviction 
of non-residential part of building cannot be sought for and as the lease D • 
was a composite one, no eviction can be ordered even in respect of 
residential part of the building. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The eviction petition filed by the appellant- landlady is 
maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Build-
ings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Thus, the order of 
High Court holding that the petition under Sec. 10(3)(a)(i)(b) is not 
maintainable, is set aside and the order of the Appellate Authority is 
restored. The bona fides of the appellant having been established she is 
entitled to vacant possession of the demised premises. [23-D-E] 
Ghan Shyam v. Laxmi Narayana, (1990) 1 ALT 43; Om Prakash v. 
Smt. Chand Devi, (1973) RCR 562; Moinuddin Khan Sahib v. Rukmani 
Ammal, (1973) All India RCJ 311; Tikamchand Mithalal Iain v. M.R. 
Narasimhaclzari, AIR (1981) Mad. 21; Jamna Prasad v. Nandkishore, (1976) 
MPW 28; Panjumal Daulatram (Firm) v. Sak/ii Gopal Thakurdin Agrawal, 
(1977) MPW 762 and Jagitkumar v. Jagdeeshchandra, AIR (1982) MP 144, 
approved. 
E 
F 
G 
Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli v. Lambu Indira Bai, (1987) 2 ALT 504 and H 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Gokulchand v. Krishnachandra & Anr., (1977) All India RCJ.376, overruled. 
B 
2.1. There is nothing in the A.P. Act to suggest that the right of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.