Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yeshpal Roy vs Gessulal Dinesh Kumar Mundada And Anr. on 13 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(2)ALT484
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dt. 13-12-1991 in R.A.No. 488 of 1989 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabd. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are tenants.
2. The petitioner filed R.C.No. 22/87 seeking to evict the respondents-tenants on the ground of additional accommodation and sought a direction to the tenants to vacate the premises bearing Municipal No. 12-10-394 (ground floor portion) situated at Seethapahalmandi, Secunderabad. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, held that the requirement of the premises is for bona fide purposes and therefore directed eviction. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No. 22/87 dated 22-8-1989, the matter was carried by way of R.A.No. 488/89 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad.
3. On behalf of the respondents-tenants herein, two grounds were mainly agitated before the lower appellate Court, viz., (1) the requirement of the landlord of the demised premises by way of additional accommodation is not bonafide and (2) the eviction proceedings are not maintainable before the Rent Controller when the lease is of composite nature. On the basis of these submissions, the lower appellate Court framed the following issues, for consideration:
"1. Whether the requirement of landlord of the demised premises by way of additional accommodation is bonafide? and
2. Whether the eviction petition is maintainable under the provisions of the Act in the case of a composite lease involving residential and non-residential premises?"
4. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants-tenants and the respondent landlord before the lower appellate Court, the learned Judge held that the requirement of the additional accomodation by the landlord was for bonafide purposes and therefore he confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller to the extent of bonafide requirement of the demised premises by way of additional accommodation. However, insofar as the maintainability of the proceedings before the Rent Controller is concerned, in a situation where the lease is of composite nature, the lower appellate Court held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed for eviction under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. This conclusion was arrived at by the lower appellate Court relying on the decisions in Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli v. L. Indira Bai, 1987 (2) ALT 504 and Miss. S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, which were placed before the lower appellate Court by the tenants in that context.
5. Aggrieved by the said finding of the lower appellate Court holding that when the lease is composite in nature, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction, the matter is being carried to this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. Before examining the contentions, it is necessary to have a few facts of the case for proper appreciation:
The petitioner is the landlord staying in a portion of the ground floor of the double storeyed building bearing Municipal No. 12-10-394, situated at Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad and has leased out to the respondents-tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/-. In the ground floor there are three tenants including the respondents herein, who are in occupation of two rooms in the residential portion and one mulgi which is a non-residential portion. The landlord is living in the up-stairs portion consisting of four rooms and a hall along with his wife, a married daughter, who is living separately from her husband along with her daughter. The landlord who is occupying the upstairs portion of the building filed R.C.No. 22 of 1987 seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground that he requires the portion occupied by the tenants for additional accommodation as he wants to shift to the ground floor and occupy the residential rooms for his residential purpose and the non-residential mulgi for the purposes of his business in consultancy as a geologist and water diviner. The reason given by him for shifting his residence and consultancy room from first floor to the ground floor is that he is a 75 year old person, who had suffered heart-attack and not in a position to climb the stairs and advised by the doctors not to climb the stairs on health grounds and that his wife, who is suffering from arthritis is also not able to climb the stairs to the first floor. According to the landlord, he requires the first floor for the use of his fifth daughter, who is a lecturer living separately from her husband along with her daughter and also because he was five other married daughters, who will be visiting him now and then. The respondents-tenants filed a counter denying the requirement of the landlord. They contended that the premises was let out to them for residential and non-residential purpose and as it is a composite lease, the eviction petition is not maintainable and that the landlord does not require the demised premises bonafide for his occupation.
7. Basing on these contentions, both the Courts below found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. Insofar as the maintainability is concerned, the lower appellate Court held that the rent control proceedings cannot be maintained if the lease is of composite nature.
8. The short question therefore which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the eviction petition is maintainable under the provisions of the Act in a situation where the lease is of composite nature involving residential and non-residential premises. On behalf of the respondents- tenants Sri. Aziz Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli v. L. Indira Bal (1st cited supra) and Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand (2nd cited supra). On behalf of the petitioner landlord Sri. N. Raghavan placed reliance on the decisions in K.Y. Yadaiah v. Chikoli Yadamma, 1971 A.P.H.C Notes 239 and Firm Panjumal Daulatram v. Sakhi Gopal, . It is contended on behalf of the petitioner landlord that the decisions cited in support of the contentions of the respondents-tenants in Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli v. L. Indira Bai (1st cited supra) and Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand (2nd cited supra) have not properly been understood by the lower appellate Court and therefore the lower appellate Court has committed grave error in arriving at the conclusion that eviction petition is not maintainable before the Rent Controller where lease is of composite nature and it has failed to appreciate the decisions cited before it. In view of the decisions in K. Y. Yadaiah v. Chikoli Yadamma, 1971 A.P.H.C Notes 239 and Firm Panjumal Daulatram v. Sakhi Gopal, it is very much clear that the eviction proceedings could be entertained even in case where the lease is of composite nature.
9. In view of the submissions it is necessary to distinguish these decisions cited in support and against the contentions by the parties.
10. Let me first refer to the decision in Dr. Madhusudan Mahuli v. L. Indira Bai (1st cited supra). The learned single Judge of this Court dealt with a case filed under Section 10 (3) (a), that is, composite lease. The learned single Judge has discussed the entire gamut of the arguments and the requirements of Section 10 (3) (a). If the decision is properly understood, I am afraid, this would not assist the submissions made on behalf of the respondents-tenants. The learned single Judge has undoubtedly observed as under:
"The plea of the tenant is that the tenancy from the inception is for residential as well as non-residential purposes and the petition for bona fide requirement for residential purposes only is not maintainable and the bona fide requirement does not arise."
11. According to this decision, it is clear that if the application is filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for residential as well as non-residential purposes, then the application is maintainable. In the case before the learned single Judge the lease deed was for multiple purposes. The landlord sought the accommodation for the purpose of additional accommodation. The learned single Judge further held that the premises bearing Door No. 824 for which eviction is sought is a non-residential one. Therefore, it is clear that when the lease is for composite purpose, that is, for residential as well as non-residential purposes, it is always open to the landlord to seek eviction for the purpose of additional accommodation as well as for non-residential purpose, such as to start business or for any avocation. The landlord is prevented from seeking to evict the tenant only on one requirement and therefore, the learned single Judge has held that there is no provision in the Act to seek eviction on one ground alone when the lease is for composite purpose.
12. In the case on hand applying the ratio laid down in the above decision, I am afraid, I cannot accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents-tenants. This Court has laid down a proposition that the landlord cannot file an eviction proceeding only for one purpose when the lease is for composite purpose. Therefore, this decision, in my view, supports the contention of the petitioner, that is, the landlord. In this case, the landlord has been staying on one of the floors of the building with wife and children and sought accommodation on the ground floor where the tenants are staying for the purpose of additional accommodation for accommodating his daughter and non-residential accommodation for the purpose of starting his profession. It is also evident from the finding of the Courts below that the landlord is of more than 80 years old and is a patient who had suffered heart attack and the doctors have advised him not to climb the stairs and shift to the ground floor with his family, as his wife is also suffering from arthritis. In view of this evidence placed before the Courts below, both the Courts below found that the requirement of the additional accommodation by the landlord is bona fide. As far as that aspect is concerned, both the Courts below held in favour of the landlord. In similar circumstances, this Court in a case in K.Y. Yhdaiah v. Chikoli Yadamma (3rd cited supra) held as under:
"This is not a case where the landlady sought eviction by splitting the contract into two, one of letting residential portion and the other of letting non-residential portion, and seeking eviction from either of the portions; but a case where, under the composite contract of tenancy, she seeks eviction both from the residential and non-residential portions of the building. Section 10 (3) entitles a land-lord to seek eviction of the tenant in the circumstances of the case."
The facts of the case on hand are directly covered by the said decision. Therefore, in my considered view, the finding of the lower appellate Court on the maintainability of the proceedings before the Rent Controller when the lease is of composite nature cannot sustain. In yet another case in Firm Panjumal Daulatram v. Sakhi Gopal (4th cited supra) the question arose before the Supreme Court was as to whether the composite purposes of the lease would bar to seek recourse to Rent control proceedings. Speaking for the Full Bench, Justice Krishna Iyer (as he then was) observed as under:
"The residential portion is a part of the building and is an accomodation by definition. The non-residential portion is also a part of the building and is an accommodation by definition. The lease has been given for residential as well as non-residential purposes. The landlord is entitled to eviction of the residential portion if he makes out a bona fide residential requirement. Likewise, he is entitled to eviction of the non-residential requirement. We have already found that the final Court of fact, affirmed by the High Court, has found in favour of the landlord regarding his residential as well as non-residential requirements. Therefore, nothing more can be done in defence of the tenant in the light of the present law."
13. In the case referred to above before the Supreme Court it was contended that whether the composite purposes of the lease would put it out of the ground set out for eviction under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. However, their Lordships of the Supreme Court distinguished the provisions and categorically held that it could be open to the landlord to approach the Rent Controller. In the said case, the Supreme Court has also referred to the decision in Miss S. Sanyal v. Gain Chand ( 2 supra) and distinguished the facts of that case and held that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction before the Rent Controller even when the essence is for multiple purposes.
14. Both the Courts below have held that the requirements of additional accommodation for the purpose of residence as well as for the purpose of starting the petitioner's avocation is bonafide and, therefore, insofar as that finding is concerned, there cannot be any dispute. Insofar as maintainability of the rent control proceedings is concerned, in view of the discussion I have made referring to few decisions, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction even when the lease is for multiple purposes. Accordingly, I hold that the lower appellate Court has not properly construed the law laid down by this Court as well as the apex court in this regard while holding that eviction proceedings are not maintainable where the lease is for composite purposes.
15. On behalf of the respondents-tenants, it is urged by Sri Aziz Ahmed Khan that the tenants are doing money lending business and if the tenants are now asked to vacate, they would suffer substantial loss and under the provisions contemplated under the Rent Control Act, an obligation is cast on the courts to realise the hardships that would be faced by the tenants when asked to vacate. I am in agreement with the submissions of Sri Aziz Ahmed Khan, as the law is very clear on this aspect. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has submitted mat the tenants have already constructed an independent multi-storeyed building and they can very well have their business there and, therefore, no hardship would be caused. In view of this development also, I am not inclined to say anything on the submission made by Sri Aziz Ahmed Khan as to the hardship that would be faced by the tenants if they are asked to vacate the premises. On the contrary, in my considered view, if the landlord, who is a heart-patient, 80 years old and doing business in consultancy as a geologist and water diviner, is not allowed to shift from second floor to ground floor, the courts would be doing more injustice to such person while trying to assist the tenants. Therefore, the Courts cannot close their eyes and ignore these facts. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, I have taken care to see that no undue hardship is caused to any party and also examined who could be the worst sufferer. Accordingly, the submissions in respect of hardships that would be faced by the tenants in the event of their eviction are not accepted.
16. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
17. In normal circumstances, I would have granted two months' time enabling the tenants to vacate the premises. But, in the present case, taking into account the health condition of the landlord, the tenants are given one month's time from to-day to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the landlord.