KONDETI SURYANARAYANA AND ORS. versus PINNINTHI SESHAGIRI RAO

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 04-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KONDETI SURYANARAYANA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PINNINTHI SESHAGIRI RAO 
NOVEMBER 4, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
'~ 
Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960-
Sections I 2(J)(b); I 2(2)-Eviction sought by landlord on ground that building c 
was bonafide required by him for demolition as the construction of tenanted 
shops on the north eastern corner of the plot was inauspicious according to 
Vastu Shastra-High Court upholding the order of the Rent Controller 
according permission to the landlord to demolish the building without any 
direction to reconstruct the same-Appeal against-Held, where the landlord D 
reasonably and bonafide requires a building for the immediate purpose of 
demolishing it, he has necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the 
tenant to re-enter the premises-Any interpretation to the contrary would 
encourage unscrupulous landlord to get eviction of tenants unfairly which 
would be repugnant to the object of the Act which aims to prevent 
unreasonable eviction of the tenant from the premises-Orders of all the E 
Courts below set aside. 
The respondent-landlord filed petitions before the Rent Controller for 
eviction of tenants from the premises on the ground that there were wilful 
defaults in payment of rent. Eviction was also sought on the ground that the 
building was reasonably and bona fide required by him for demolition as he F 
had been advised by Pundits ofVastu Shastra that the construction of tenanted 
shops on the north-eastern corner of the plot was inauspicious. The said 
petitions were a!Jowed by the Rent Controller thereby according permission 
to the landlord to demolish the building without any direction to reconstruct 
the building as required under sub-clause(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 G 
... 
of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 . 
The appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
present appeals. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the order passed by 
389 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A the Courts below was in conflict with the provisions of sub-clause (b) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act and therefore, the said 
order deserves to be quashed. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that the word 'and' occurring 
in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 was disjunctive and it had to 
B be read as 'or' meaning thereby that after demolition of the building the 
landlord was not required to reconstruct the building. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Where the landlord requires demolition of the building, he 
C has necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the tenant to re-enter 
the premises. Where a building is reasonably and bona fide required by the 
landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is 
to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the said building, 
the tenant shall have right of re-entry in the premises on its reconstruction. 
D The language of sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 is plain and 
simple and does not suffer from any ambiguity. Therefore, when a landlord 
requires a building to be demolished, necessarily he has to reconstruct the 
building on the same site of the building and on reconstruction of new building 
the tenant has a right to re-enter the said premises. [391-H; 392-A, B) 
1.2. If it were to be held that after demolition of the building the landlord 
E is not required to reconstruct the building, then it would encourage 
unscrupulous landlords to get eviction of the tenants on the ground of 
demolition of the building which would be repugnant to the object of the Act 
which aims to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenant from the premises. 
F 
G 
[392-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9987 and 
9989 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.95 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in C.R.P. Nos. 409, 462 and 463 of 1994. 
A.T.M. Sainpath and V. Balaji for the Appellants. 
M.N. Rao and Ms. B. Sunita Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
V. N. KHARE, J. The tenants are in appeal before us. The building in 
'·< 
KONDETI SURYANARAYANA v. P.S. RAO [V.N. KHARE, J.] 
391 
question consists of two shops, which is owned by the respondent-landlord. A 
The respondent-landlord filed petitions before the

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