GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ versus R B. JINENDER RAJ & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 27-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13· (ADDL) S.C.R. 837 
GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ 
v. 
RB. JINENDER RAJ & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 849 of 2002) 
AUGUST 27, 2009 
[DAVLEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS(LEASE, RENT AND 
EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960: 
A 
B 
c 
s.10(3)(a)(iii) - Non-residential premises - Petition by 
landlord co-owners for eviction of tenant from non-residential 
premises - Dismissed by Rent Controller holding that 
landlords already in possession of one non-residential 
premises could not seek eviction of tenant from another non-
0 
residential premises - Held: A landlord is not precluded from 
seeking eviction of tenant from any non-residential building 
even if he has another non-residential building - Aspects of 
quality, size and unsuitability of the building cannot be out of 
consideration, otherwise, the purposes of the Act would be 
E 
frustrated - Matter remitted to Rent Controller for considering 
objection of tenant as also the claim of landlords. 
The respondent-landlords filed a petition uls 
13(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act, 1960, for eviction of the appellant-tenant from 
F 
non-residential premises. The Rent Controller accepting 
the objection of the tenant, held that the landlords being. 
joint owners and in possession of one non-residential 
premises could not seek eviction of tenant from other 
non-residential premises. However, the appellate court G 
allowed the appeal of the landlords. The High Court 
declined to interfere in the revision petition filed by the 
tenant. 
837 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant appeal filed by the tenant, the question 
B 
for consideration before the Court was: whether a co-
owner occupying a non-residential premises can seek 
eviction of a tenant in possession of another non-
residential premises for his bone fide requirements. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: As has been held in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah*, 
a landlord is not precluded to seek eviction of tenant from 
any non-residential building even if he is having another 
C non-residential building. The aspects of quality, size and 
suitability of the building cannot be out of consideration 
and doing so would be to frustrate the purposes of the 
Act. The Rent Contraoller would consider the objection 
of the tenant as well as the claim of the landlords. He may 
D permit the parties to lead additional evidence. In the facts 
and circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller would 
decide the case as expeditiously as possible. [Para 
9,15,17 and 18] [845-E-F-H; 846-A-B] 
',, 
E 
*Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. 
(1998) 5 SCC 572; J. Pandu v. R. Narsubai (1987) 1 SCC 
573; Saroj Kumar Das (Dr.) v. Arjun Prasad Jogani (1987) 4 
sec 262, relied on. 
Vidya Bai & Another v. Shanker/al & Another AIR 1988 
F AP 184; Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. 
Thyabal/y Rasuljee (1995) 1 SCC 410; Rasik Auto Stores & 
Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar & Another (1998) 8 SCC 177; 
Om Prakash v. Basanthilal (1999) 9 SCC 618.; and D. Devaji 
v. K. Sudarashana Rao 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 729, referred 
G to. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1988 AP 184 
referred to 
para 6 
H 
GULAB CHAND PUKHRAJ v. RB. JINENDER RAJ & 839 
ANR. 
(199~) 1 sec 410 
referred to 
para 9 
A 
..._A 
: 
~ ;.. 
'" 
. 
referred to 
para 9 
(199'3);-8 sec 111 
(1999) 9 sec 618 
referred to 
para 9 
(1998) s sec 572 
relied on 
para 9 
B 
(1987) 1 sec 573 
relied on 
para 12 
t-
(1987) 4 sec 262 
relied on 
para 12 
~ 
1994 Supp. (1) sec 729 referred to 
para 13 c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 849 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.4.2001 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 4009 of D 
'1 
1998. 
C.M. Nayyar, S.K.Thakkur, Kirti Mansingh, A. Venayagam 
Balan for the Appellant. 
A.D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain (for A. Subba Rao) for the 
E 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
F 
against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad dated 26.4.2001 delivered in Civil Revision Petition 
No.4009 of 1998. 
2. The short question which arises for consideration in this 
appeal is .:.. whether a co-owner occupying a non-residential 
G 
premises ean seek eviction of a tenant in possession of 
. --f 
another non-residential premises for his bona fide 
requirements? 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (AODL.} S.C.R. 
A 
3.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.