D. DEVAJI versus K. SUDARSHANA RAO

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 07-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D. DEVAJI 
v. 
K. SUDARSHANA RAO 
OCTOBER 7, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ] 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
1960: Section 10(3) (a) (iii)-lnterpretation of-Object of the Act explain,ed. 
C 
Landlord-Eviction petition-Non-residential building-Ground of bona 
fide requirement-Landlord having several non-residential buildings and shops 
in the same locality-l{eld requirement was not bona fide-Suitability and 
convenience of landlord held not relevant. 
The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under section 
D 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act, 1960 on the ground of bona fide requirement of the demised 
building. The Trial Court directed eviction of the appellant-tenant. On 
appeal, the appellate court reversed the decree boding that the respondent· 
landlord had several non-residential buildings as well as shops in the same 
E 
locality. The evidence adduced and accepted by the appellate court also 
indicated that the respondent demanded enhancement of rent at Rs. 500/· 
per month but the appellant agreed to enhance the rent to a sum of Rs. 
300/· to which the respondent was not agreeable. The evidence also indi-
cated that through the respondent stated that he needed the demised 
building for storage of fire.clay as he was granted a mining lease, he never 
F 
used the shops 'in his possession for storage of clay. Accordingly, the 
appellate court held that the requirement of respondent was not bona fide. 
On revision the High Court reversed the appellate court's order and 
confirmed the decree of the trial court. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the respondent-
landlord that when the landlord proves that he bona fide requires the 
building for his business it must also be further found that the building 
which he seeks for eviction is suitable to him to carry on his business or to 
I 
commence his business or other buildings to which he is the owner, is not 
suitable for the said business or whether he is also entitled to another 
H building in addition to the building in his occupation for his additional 
14 
•
mil -
DEVAJI v. SUDARSHANA 
15 
business or a new business and that, therefore, Section 10(3) (a) (iii) needs A 
interpretation in that behalf. 
I 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court is not right in its conclusion. The finding B 
of the appellate court that the respondent does not bona fide require the 
.. 
demised building for business is well founded. Apart from the fact that the 
respondent had already eight shops and other houses to carry on his 
business, the bona fide claim is belied from the evidence and his conduct. 
The High Court has not considered this question in its proper perspective. c 
Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is confirmed. 
[20D-H, 21-A] 
2. An analysis of section 10(1) (3) (a) indicates that the landlord must 
be in possession of a non-residential building in the city, town or village 
and if he requires another non-residential building for expansion of his 
business or to establish another business or needs additional accommoda- D 
tion of a non-residential building in the same city, town or village, Section 
10(3) (a) (iii) creates an embargo. Suitability or convenience does not 
appear to have, from the language found therein, been envisaged by the 
legislature. [19-G-H; 20-A) 
Balaiah v. Lachaiah, A.l.R. (1965) A.P. 435; E.K Nagamanichkan E 
Chettiar v. Nallakanna Servai, (1957) 1M.L.J.182 andlanab Abdul Khader 
v. Hussain Ali & Sons, (1962) 2 M.L.J. 446, disapproved. 
Vidya Bai v. Shanker/al, A.l.R. (1988) A.P.184 and Vijayalaxmi Printing 
Press v. Nandula Shankar, (1991) 1 A.L.T. 249, approved. 
F 
J. Pandu v. R. Narsubai, [1987) 1 S.C.C. 573, held inapplicable. 
,. 
3. The object of the Act is to enable the landlord to recover possession 
of his non-residential building in occupation of a tenant, if his requirement 
is bona fide for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on or he G 
bona fide proposes to commence. However, the intendment of the legisla-
tore is clear that a landlord who is in occupation of a non-residential 
• 
building which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled to 
under the Act or any other law should not be permitted to recover posses-
sion of another non-residential building belonging to him by evicting th

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