MUDIGONDA CHANDRA MOULI SASTRY versus BHIMANEPALLI BIKSHALU AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 04-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MUDIGONDA CHANDRA MOULI SASTRY 
v. 
BHIMANEPALLI BIKSHALU AND ORS. 
AUGUST 4, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960-Sections 
10(3) and 10 (4)(i)-lnterpretation of-Eviction petition filed by landlord-
Tenant claiming protection against eviction on the ground that he is employed C 
in a department catering essential services-Tenant transferred to another 
city or town-Applicability of protection under S.10(4)(i) of the Act-Held, 
when a tenant engaged in catering essential services has been transferred 
to another city or town, the protection to such a tenant against an order 
passed under S. J 0(3) of the Act ceases to be available to him in respect of 
premises in his original place of posting. 
D 
Revisional Jurisdiction-Concurrent finding of facts by two courts-
No a/legation that the said findings suffered from any legal infirmity-High 
Court re-assessing evidence and interfering with concurrent finding of facts-
Held, under the facts and circumstances High Court exceeded its power while 
exercising revisional jurisdiction. 
E 
Appellant-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant 
on the ground of bonafide requirement, besides other grounds not relevant 
for the purpose of the present appeal, which was allowed by the Rent 
Controller. Appeal preferred by the tenant against the order of the Rent F 
Controller was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Revision petition filed 
by the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority was allowed by the 
High Court on the ground that by virtue ofS.I0(4Xi) of A.P. Building (Lease, 
Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, no order of eviction could be passed 
against the tenant, as the tenant is employed in a department, which has been 
declared as catering an essential service; and that the transfer of tenant to G 
another town would not come in the way of protection available to the tenant 
under S.10(4)(i) of the Act. The High Court further, after re-assessing 
evidence reversed the finding of facts as regards other grounds for eviction 
-
arrived at by the courts below. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the 
appellant has filed the present appeal. 
69 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The contentions of the appellant were that the tenant having been 
B 
transferred to another town, the protection under S.10(4)(i) of the Act, was 
not available to the tenant; and that it was not open to the High Court, ~bile 
· exercising its revisional jurisdiction, to re..;assess the evidence and reverse 
concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. A perusal of Section 10(4)(i) of the A.P. Building (Lease, 
Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 shows that no order of eviction can be · 
passed under sub-section (3) of Section J 0 of the Act against any tenant, who 
C is engaged in any employment or Class of employment notified by the 
government as an essential service for the purposes of this sub-section. The 
tenant, who was working in a department which was declared as an essential 
service by the Government by issuing a notification under Section 10(4)(i) 
of the Act, was transferred to another town which was about 110 miles from 
his original place of posting. The object behind clause(i) of sub-section ( 4) 
D of Section 10 is that an employee who is employed for rendering an essential 
service is not to be ejected from the premises of which he is a tenant lest 
he would be put to hardship and inconvenience which may, ultimately, interfere 
in his working in catering essential services to the society. Keeping in mind/ 
the object, it is held that once a tenant who was engaged in catering essential 
E services, has been transferred to another city or town, the protection to such . 
a tenant against an order passed under sub-section(3) of Section 10 of the 
Act ceases to be available to him as he is no longer required to cater 
essential services. If a literal interpretation to clause (i) of Sub-section (4) 
of Section 10 is given, then it would lead to an anomalous position. For 
F 
example, if a tenant working in a department which is rendering essential 
services is transferred to another city or town where he is posted in a · 
department which is also engaged in providing essential services and he 
takes a premises on rent for his residence, it would mean that such a tenant 
enjoys protection again

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