S. MOHAN LAL versus R. KONDIAH

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 05-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
l 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
12 
S. MOHAN LAL 
v. 
R. KONDIAH 
February 5, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.j 
Andhra Pradesh Building (Lea.e, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, 
6. 10(3) (a) (iii), "business," interpretation, whether includes practice of legal 
profession-Construction of expressions, principles. 
' • 
• 
The respondent, an advocate, sought to evict his tenant, the appellant, under 
· 
s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) .,j-.-.. 
Control Act, 1960, on the ground that he required the disputed premises for 
"---
carrying on his profession. The court of small causes, Hyderabad, finding 
,.__ 
that the requirement was bon.a fide, passed an eviction 
order 
against the 
appellant. In revision, the High Court negatived the contention 
that 
the 
expression "business" used in s. 10(3) (a) (iii), - did not include the 'profession' 
of an advocate. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : 1. "Business" is a word of large and wide import, capable of a 
variety of meanings. In a broad sense it is taken to mean 'everything that 
occupies the time, attention and labour of men, for the purpose of livlihood 
. or profit'. The practice of law is 'business' within the 
meaning 
of 
that 
expression in s.10(3)(a)(iii). The Act is of general application, 
and its 
protection is not confined to any classes of tenants, nor is the right to evict 
under the Act, limited to any class of landlords. There is no reuon why a 
landlord who is a member of the legal or medical professions and who requires 
the premises for carrying 
on the practice of his profession, ihould be 
wholly debarred from obtaining possession of the premises. It 
1NOuld be 
anamolous to bold that all the provisions of the Act apply to non-midential 
buildings owned by an Advocate, excepting s. 10(3)(a)(iii). 
[14D, E, l6A-B, C.D] 
Williams' Will Trusts, Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China arul 
A11r. v. Williams and Ors., [1953] 1 All. ELR 536; Taramal v. Laxman Sewak 
Surcy & Ors. 1971 MPU 888, approved. 
M. P. Sethurama Menon v. Thaiparambath Kunhukutty A.mma's daught•r, . 
Meenakshi Amma &: Ors., AIR 1967 Kerala 
88; 
Bangalore 
Water~Supply 
S.werage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa & Ors .• [1978] 3 SCR 207; 
Stuchbery 
& Ors. v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Carp. Ltd., (194'] 2 KBD 
256; distinguished. 
2. It is a sound principle of construction that, meaning of 
words 
and 
expressions used in an Act, muat take their colour from tho context in whieb. 
they appear. Neither the meaning, nor tho definition of a term in one statute, 
affords a guide to tho construction of tho same term in another statute, more 
so, if the two Acts in Which the same word is used, a.re not cognate Acta 
and the sense in which a term has been understood in ieveral statute&:, deos 
not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which it •hould be under-
stood aenerally. [14G·H &: 15AJ 
. 
/ 
}" 
MOHAN LAL v. R· KONDIA!l: (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
13 
C!vn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 1969. 
A 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
25-6-1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Peti-
tion No. 346/67. 
Y. S. Chitaley; S. K. 'Mehta, P. N. Puri and E. M. Sarul Anam for 
the Appellant. 
B 
A. T. M. Sampath and P. N. Ramalingam for the Respondent. 
• 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
·'+"--
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The short question for consideration in this 
<' 
appeal is whether the practice of the legal profession is 'business' within 
the meaning of Section 10(3) (a) (jii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings 
(Lease,, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 
The question arises 
this way. 
The respondent, an Advocate filed an application before the 
Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant, his tenant, from the 
premises in question on the ground that he required the premises for 
the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate. 
The appli· 
cation was contested by the appellant who was carrying on the business 
of manufacturing art jewellery in the premises. 
We are not coucemed 
in this appea!l with the several defences which were raised by th~ appel-
lant. Nor are we concerned with the vicissitudes which the case under-
went. 
For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the 
final Court of fact, namely the Chief Judge of the Court of Small 
causes, Hyderabad, found that the respondent bona fide required the

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