SMT. G. KAUSHALYA DEVI versus GHANSHY AMDAS

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 12-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

k 
SMT. G. KAUSHALYA DEVI 
A 
v. 
GHANSHY AMDAS 
JANUARY 12, 2000 
[S. SAGIR AHMED AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
196<r--Section 10(3)(a/(iii)--Bonafide requirement of Landlord 'to the pos-
C 
session of which he is entitled"~onnotation of-Held: does not include 
possession otherwise than as owner. 
The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the appel-
lant tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Evic-
tion) Control Act, 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, D 
bonafide requirement for personal occupation and that the tenant had 
secured alternative accommodation. The suit premises was non-residen-
tial. 
Before the Rent Controller, the ground of securing alternative ac-
E 
commodation was not pressed. The Rent Controller held that there was 
default in payment of rent, and that the premises was required bonafide 
by the landlord for conducting his business, and accordingly ordered 
eviction. On appeal by the tenant the Appellate Authority affirmed the 
findings of the Rent Controller and upheld the eviction order. On revision, 
the High Court under Section 22 of the Act, held that there was no wilful 
F 
default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but concurred with the 
findings of both the courts below on the ground of bonafide requirement 
of. the landlord, and dismissed the revision petition. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the tenant that 
the order of eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement G 
of the landlord was bad in law as it was contrary to the provisions of 
Section 10(3)(a)(iii) as the landlord was already in occupation of certain 
shop prembes though on lease, in the same city where he was running his 
businl!ss in partnership. Under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) it was immaterial 
whether the landlord was in possession of the premises as tenant or H 
193 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A otherwise. 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Rent 
Control Act are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 8(3) (a) (ii) of 
B the Mysore Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951. The expression 
"to the possession which he is entitled" is found in the said provision in 
the Mysore Act and was the subject matter of interpretation by the 
Constitution Bench in M. Padmanabha Setty's case wherein it was held that 
the words "entitled to possession" have a more positive content and are 
C more akin to the right of possession which an owner has in respect of the 
building owned and occupied by him. [197-C-E; 199-A-B] 
M. Padmanabha Setty v. KP. Papiah Setty, [1966) 3 SCR 868 relied 
on. 
D 
2. The contention of the appellant that since the respondent is already 
having his business in a leased premises of which he is in possession, he 
cannot seek eviction of the appellant, cannot be accepted. [199-B-C] 
3. The High Court upheld the findings of the courts below that the 
respondent required the suit premises for his personal occupation for 
E conducting his business and that these findings were neither perverse nor 
based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. [199-D-E] 
4. The High Court was also of the view that the Act did not prohibit 
eviction of the tenant by the landlord if the members of the family of the 
F landlord possessed other non-residential premises. Even though the 
respondent and his brothers were conducting business on partnership 
basis yet it was no ground that the requirement of respondent is not 
bonafide. [199-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 194 of 
G 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.99 of tht: Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 1906 of 1999. 
Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Srinivas Rao, S.K. Mehta for the Appd-
H Iant. 
; 
SMT. G.K DEVI v. GHANSHYAMDAS [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 
195 
F.S. Nariman, Krishna Mandwal, P. Venugopal, P.S. Sudheer and A 
K.J. John and M/s. K.J. John & Co. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant is a tenant. His eviction from suit premises has been 
affrrmed by the High Court in revision filed by him. Feeling aggrieved, he 
has filed this appeal. 
Respondent-landlord filed eV1ct10n petition against the appellant 
under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Evic-
tion) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 

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