DUGGI VEERA VENKATA GOPALA SATYANARAYANA versus SAKALA VEERA RAGHAVAIAH & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 19-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DUGGI VEERA VENKATA GOPALA SATYANARAYANA 
v. 
SAKALA VEERA RAGHAV AIAH & ANR. 
-...( 
DECEMBER 19, 1986 
B 
[llANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings, (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control + 
Act, 1960, s.10(3)(a)(iii)-Non-residential building-Eviction of tenant 
on the ground of Landlord's own occupation-Facts to be pleaded in 
petition and proved at the trial. 
c 
The respondents r.Jed an eviction petition against the appellant-
-
tenant in respect of a shop-room under s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra 
'r 
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, rent and eviction) Control Act 1960 on the 
ground of bona fide requirement for starting a husiness in readymade 
....,,. 
garments. The Rent Controller, passed the eviction ordei' against the 
D appellant holding that the respondents required the suit shop for their 
personal occupation. The Appellate Authority as well as the High Court 
affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller in the appeal and revision 
respectively. 
In appeal to this Court by the appellant-tenant, it was contended 
E for the first time that since there was no averment of the facts constitut-
ing the grounds or conditions of eviction as contained in sub-s. (3)(a)(iii) ... 
of s.10 of the Act, the courts below were not justified in passing the 
order of eviction against the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
F 
HELD: 1. Under the law of pleadings facts mentioned in sub-cl.(iii) 
of s.10(3)(a) of the Act are to be pleaded in the petition and thereafter 
proved at the trial for the purpose of an order of eviction against the )\· 
tenant. Further, any amount of proof offered without appropriate 
' ' 
pleading is generally of no relevance. Therefore, the landlord has to 
G plead and establish (i) that be bona fide requires the accommodation let 
to the tenant for non-residential purposes for the purpose of continuin;g 
or starting the business; and (ii) that be bas no other reasonably suitable 
non-residential accommodation of his own in bis occupation in the city 
or the town concerned. [677H; 678A-B] 
H 
Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCR 601, relied upon, 
674 -
• 
D.V.V.G. SAl;YANARAYANA '· S.V. RAGHAVAIAH IDUTI,J.] 
675 
~ 
2. The point regarding absence of any averment of the facts A 
constituting the grounds or conditions of eviction as contained in sub-
s.(3)(a)(iii) of s. IO of the Act was not taken in any of the courts below nor 
has it been taken in the Special Leave Petition. For the first time, it has 
been raised .in the argument. Therefore, there. is no justification to 
interfere with the order of eviction. [679D] 
B 
-t" 
In the instant case, the respondents did not suppress any faCt at 
the trial and disclosed the non-residential buildings owned by the re-
spondent no. I but not in their occupation. Indeed it is the case of the 
respondents that the djsputed shop-room is centrally located in the 
heart of Guntur city in a business locality, that there are a number of 
-.( 
readymade garment shops in that locality, and that the disputed shop- c 
room is the best place for commencing such a business. It has also been 
~ 
observed by the High Court that the respondents have come forward 
with a clean and clear case and with reasons as to why they chose the 
disputed shop-room for the proposed business to be commenced by the 
resi>ondent No. 2. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant that if he is 
given an opportunity to adduce .. further evidence after amendment of D 
pleadings, he would be able to furnish any new material showing that 
the respondents are occupying any non-residential building suitable for 
commencing the proposed business therein and, as such, they are not 
entitled to an order for eviction. In view of the aforesaid facts also, the 
~ 
appeal is liable to be dismissed. [67SE-H] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civi.l Appeal No. 2714 
of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2. 1984 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 
2053 of 1981. 
F 
··:r· 
I 
T,V.S.N. Chari for the Appellant. 
Govind Mukhoty, P.K. Gupta and K.V. Upendra Gupta for the 
·Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
...( 
DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment bf the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the revision 
petition of the appellant against the order of the Subordinate Judge, 
H 
Guntur, whereby he affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPO

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