SMT. FATIMA BEE versus MAHAMOOD SIDDIQUI ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 857 · Decided: 24-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
·, 
SMT. FATIMA BEE 
A 
v. 
MAHAMOOD SIDDIQUI ETC. 
JULY 24, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, .l.T.] 
B 
Rent and Eviction : 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
1960: 
c 
Ss. JO( I.I Proviso, 10(2) and 10(3 )--Non-residential premises-Eviction 
fron1-Bo11a fide requirenient-Landlady requbing pren1ises to carry on her 
on,,n business-Tenants raising a nzala fide plea of pennanent tenancy as also 
denying title of land lad;~Held, Rent Controller and the appellate cowt, after 
appreciating the 1ival evidence, 1ightly recorded findings of fact that landlady D 
bona fide required suit pren1ises for canying on her own business and tenants 
were liable to vacate the pren1ises-Mata fide clabn of 11en11anent tenancy is 
also a separate ground for eviction apmt from denial of title of landlord. 
The appellant-landlady filed three petitions under s.10(3) of the 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, 
for eviction of three tenants from her nonaresidential premises on the 
ground that she required the suit premises bona fide for carrying on her 
own business. It was stated that she did not have any other non-residential 
premises nor was she carrying on the business in the residential premises. 
E 
The Rent Controller allowed the petitions and directed the tenants to F 
vacate the premises. The tenants filed appeals. Meanwhile the appellant 
also tiled three other eviction petitions against the said three tenants 
under s.10 of the Act alleging that the tenants had taken false pleas in their 
written statements in the appeals that the landlady had entered into an 
agreement with them for sale of the suit property and they had a right of G 
permanent tenancy; and that they denied that they were tenants or the 
premises. The Rent Controller allowed the petitions. The tenants chal-
lenged the orders by filing appeals. The appellate Court dismissed all the 
six appeals. The tenants filed six revision applications in the High Court. 
The Revision petitions of one of the tenants were dismissed as there H 
857 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPOr<Ts (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A was a finding that he had sublet the premises and had also defaulted in 
pay1nent of rent. 'fhe revision applications of the other tenants \Yere 
allowed by the High Court holding that they had not denied the ownership 
of the appellant and by raising a pica that they were not the tenants in 
respect of the premises it could not be said that they had denied her title. 
B 
c 
As regards the bona fide need of the landlady, the High Court held that 
finding of the Courts below on this point was not based on relevant 
evidence rclal'ing to the needs of the business nor n·as it shon'n as to hon· 
n1uch area \l'as required and, as such, reqnirements of Section 
10(3)(a)(iii) (a) were not made out. Aggrievrd, the landlady tiled the 
present appeals. 
Allon'ing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court con1n1itted a grave error in reversing the 
finding regarding bona fide rt'tjuirement of the landlady. The Rent Con· 
troller after appreciating: the evidence led on behalf of the parties had 
D recorded the findings that the landlady was carQing on business aloni,•with 
other family men1hers and she ret1uired the suit premises bona fide for 
carrying on her business. These findings "'ere contirn1ed hy the appellate 
court again after appreciating the evidence. No part of the evidence was 
misread by the courts belcnv. Therefore, there \Vas no justification for the 
E High Court to reverse the said findings of fact. [862-A-B] 
1.2. It was stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the landlady 
that their bangle business was carried on from three different shops and 
they intend to carry on the said business from the suit premises. It was 
not even put to these vi'itnesses that a lesser area would be sufficient for 
F the purpose of carQing on that business. It was, therefore, improper for 
the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact in this behalf on the 
ground that the landlady had not shown how much area she required for 
carrying on her business. [862-D-E] 
G 
2. As regards the claim of the tenants that they have a right of 
permanent tenancy, what they have stated in their evidence is that when the 
landlady purchased the suit premises she and her husband had assured 
not to evict them. The husband of the landlady who was examined as a 
witness had clearly denied in his evidence that any su

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