M/S RAWALMAL NARAINDAS AND SONS versus B. AMARNATH AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 08-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S llA W ALMAL NARAINDAS AND ~NS 
v. 
B. AMARNA TH AND ANR. 
APRIL 8, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction ; 
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 : 
Eviction of tenant occupying a unit in a ''building' '-Held, continued 
to be a separate entity for the purpose of eviction-A.P. Buildings (Lease, 
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) 
and 2(iii). 
A 
B 
c 
Section 2(iii)-"Building"-May not be an indivisible single unit- D 
Such separate unit has to be treated separately for the purpose of eviction .. 
Section 1J-Conversion of building into nonresidential-Contention 
of appellant-tenant that the conversion of the building was contrary to 
Section 18 and disentitled the landlord from seeking eviction-Held, such E 
plea was more hypothetical than real-Moreover this plea was not raised 
before the courts below. 
Section 10(3)(a)(iii)-Bona fide requirement of landlord-Landlord 
needed additional accommodation in the same building for commercial 
purpose-Landlord entitled to an order of eviction whether he uses the F 
premises for residential or non-residential purposes. 
Words and Phrases-Word "building"-Meaning of-In the context of 
Section 2(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 
Appellant-firm was granted lease in a unit on the ground floor of a 
building. Respondent No. 1, a co-owner filed a suit for eviction of the appellant 
before the Rent Controller on the ground of his bone fide requirement as 
he had decided to commence business. The eviction was allowed by the Rent 
Controller and confirmed by the appellate court and the High Court in 
revision. Hence this appeal. 
523 
G 
H 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
· A 
It was contended by the appellant that respondent-landlord was not 
B 
c 
justified in invoking the provision of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings 
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 as provision of Section 10(3) 
(c) was applicable and that conversion of the building was contrary to Section 
18 of the Act. 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The building or part of the building as leased out has to be 
deemed to be a "building" for the purpose of eviction proceedings and a part 
of the building cannot be permitted to be a part of the whole building. The 
building, a unit with a separate door number on the ground floor which was 
leased out to the appellant-tenant was adn,iittedly a non-residential "building" 
which attracted the &pplicability of the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of 
the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Section 
10(3)(c) would apply in a case where out of the leased premises, a part 
thereof is in occupation of the landlord who in that event can apply to the 
D Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession 
thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purpose or 
for purposes of a business which he was carrying on, as the case may be. 
Part of the building referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 
of the Act has to be understood in the context of the definition of the w~rd 
E 
"building" under Section 2(iii) of the Act If the building within the meaning 
of Section 2(iii) is indivisible, the same has to be taken as an entity for the 
purpose of deciding the issue regarding eviction and cannot be further split 
or its scope widened by having regard to the loose general meaning of the 
word "building". [527-E-H] 
F 
2. The plea that the conversion of the building being contrary to 
Section 18 of the Act, disentitled the landlord to seek eviction is more 
hypothetical than real. No such plea was raised before the courts below. 
[528-8] 
Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjit Kaur, [1987) 3 SCC 711 and Shri 
G Ba/aganesan Chetty & Ors., [1987] 2 SCR 1173, distinguished. 
3. If a landlord satisfies the Rent Controller that he wanted additional 
accommodation in the same building for his residential or non-residential 
requirements, then not withstanding the user to which the tenant was putting 
in the leased portion, the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction so that 
H he could re-adjust additional accommodation in the manner sought for should 
RA WALMAL NARAINDAS v. B. AMARNATH [SETHI, J.J 
525 
be used by the landlord for the same purpose for which the tenant sought A 
to be evicted was using it. [529-E-F) 
K Parasuramaih v. Laksmamma

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