GANGARAM versus N. SHANKAR REDDY

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 06-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'":;' 
:+; 
GANGARAM 
v. 
N. SHANKAR REDDY 
OCTOBER 6, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND S. NATARAJAN, J.] 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control 
Act, 1960-Section 10(3)(c)-Landlord entitled to seek eviction of 
tenant occupying another portion or remaining portion of same building 
and not occupying portion in another building-What is envisaged is 
oneness of building and not oneness of ownership of two different build-
ings one occupied by landlord and another by tenant. 
The respondent had acquired the building being premises 
No. 1.1.249 Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad, constructed two storeys over. ' 
this building and utilised the upper floors for his residence and the 
ground floor for his business. Subsequently, he had purchased the adja-
cent building being Jlremises No. 1-1-250. The appellant was a tenant 
in the suit premises No. l.l.250 even before the respondent purchased 
it, and was running his shop in the front room and residing in the rear 
·portion. 
The respondent sought eviction of the appellant inter alia on the 
ground of requirement of additional space under section I0(3)(c) of the 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
1960, under which a landlord occupying oniy a part of a building was 
entitled to seek the eviction of a tenant occupying another portion or the 
remaining portion of the building if the landlord required additional 
accommodation for residential purpose or for carrying on his business. 
The Rent Controller held that the respondent was not entitled to 
an order of eviction under s. l0(3)(c) because the leased premises was a 
separate building and did not form part of the building in which the 
respondent was carrying on his business. 
The Appellate Authority however held that even thougbthe leased 
premises had a separate municipal door number it could be .treated as 
forming part of the building in the respondent's occupation because 
both' the buildings were owned by the respondent and were separated 
only by a single wall. 
''.:~);. 
\ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
The High Court in revision held that if the respondent wanted the 
premises bona fide as an additional accommodation it did not matter 
whether it was a separate building or a portion of the same building. 
Before this Court, the appellant contended that section 10(3)(c) 
would not apply to a case where the landlord and the tenant were 
occupying different buildings even though the two buildings were 
owned by the same landlord. The respondent, on the other hand, con-
tended that the two buildings could not be treated as independent and 
separate buildings because both the buildings were owned by the 
respondent and were separated only by a single wall. 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (l) From a reading of clause (c) of section lOq) it is 
obvious that provision has been made under that clause only to seek the 
eviction of a tenant occupying another portion or the remaining portion 
of the building in which the landlord is also residing or carrying on his 
D 
business in one portion. [437F] 
(2) What s. 10(3)(c) envisages is the oneness of the building and 
not the oneness of ownership of two different buildings, one occupied by 
the landlord and the-other b-y the tenant. [438G-HJ 
-
-
E 
(3) The significant words used in s. I0(3)(c) are "the landlord 
who is occupying only a part of a building" and "any tenant occupying 
the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building." [438H; 439A] 
( 4) A practical test which can be applied to find out if two adjoin-
ing buildings form part of the same building or two different buildings 
F 
would be to see whether one of the two buildings can be sold by the 
landlord and the purchaser inducted into possession of the premises 
sold without the landlord's possession and enjoyment of the premises in 
his occupation being affected. [439B-C] 
(5) The identity of two separate buildings is not to be judged on 
G _ t_he basis of the buildings being separated by a single wall or by two 
separate walls with intervening space in between them. [4J9E] -
(6) There is no room or scope for the respondent to invoke section 
2(iii), defining the word "building", to contend that two different pre-
mises should be treated as a single and integrated building for the 
H purposes of the AcCif the two bulldillgs adjoin each other and are 
GANGARAM v. N.S. REDDY JNATARAJAN, J.] 
435 
owned by t

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