9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the term 'business' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
Summary: The case involved a dispute where the respondent, an Advocate, sought eviction of the appellant, a tenant engaged in manufacturing art jewelry, from the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate. The appellant contested, arguing that the practice of the legal profession is not 'business' as per the Act. The High Court upheld the eviction order, considering the practice of law as 'business'. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging this interpretation. Key Details: - The appellant's counsel argued for a narrow interpretation of 'business', distinguishing it from 'profession' and contending that the Act only allows eviction for business purposes in non-residential buildings. - The Act aims to regulate leasing of buildings, control rent, and prevent unreasonable eviction, applying to residential and non-residential buildings. - Section 10(3)(a)(iii) allows eviction from a non-residential building for the landlord's business purposes, whether existing or proposed. - The Court rejected the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the term 'business' in the Act should be broadly construed to include the practice of the legal profession. - Previous cases and judgments were cited to support the interpretation that 'business' can encompass professions like law, ensuring no discrimination against liberal professions. - The Court disagreed with applying interpretations from other statutes to define 'business' in the present context, emphasizing the need to interpret terms within the specific statute. - Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the practice of law constitutes 'business' under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
