9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960. 2. Bona fide requirement of the landlady for additional accommodation. 3. Relative hardship to the tenant versus the advantage to the landlady. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960: The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 10(3)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960. This section allows a landlord occupying part of a building to apply for eviction of a tenant occupying another part if additional accommodation is required for residential or business purposes. The court examined two conflicting decisions on this matter: Shajehan Saheb v. Yakub Khan Saheb, which held that eviction could not be sought for a different purpose than the tenant's current use, and Appalaraju v. Samburatnamurthy, which allowed for re-adjustment of accommodation needs without such restriction. The court concluded that Section 10(3)(c) permits a landlord to seek additional accommodation for any purpose, irrespective of the tenant's current use, emphasizing the non obstante clause that overrides the restrictions in Section 10(3)(a). 2. Bona fide Requirement of the Landlady for Additional Accommodation: The landlady filed for eviction, claiming she needed additional space due to her two sons' recent marriages. The Rent Controller initially found her requirement not bona fide, but the Subordinate Judge overturned this, recognizing her genuine need for more space. The court agreed with the Subordinate Judge, noting that the landlady's requirement was reasonable and not a mere pretext. The court emphasized that bona fide requirement does not mean absolute necessity but a reasonable need based on genuine circumstances. The landlady's situation, with an increased family size, justified her need for additional accommodation. 3. Relative Hardship to the Tenant versus the Advantage to the Landlady: The court examined the proviso to Section 10(3)(c), which mandates rejecting an eviction application if the tenant's hardship outweighs the landlord's advantage. The tenant argued that his long-term occupation and established photography business would suffer irreparable loss if evicted. However, the court found no substantial evidence of the tenant's efforts to find alternative accommodation. The court noted that while some hardship is inherent in eviction, it did not outweigh the landlady's need for additional space due to her expanding family. The court highlighted that the landlady's need for accommodation was genuine and her current living conditions were insufficient, thus her advantage outweighed the tenant's hardship. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Subordinate Judge's decision. The tenant was given three months to vacate the premises, failing which the landlady could execute the eviction order. The judgment emphasized the liberal interpretation of Section 10(3)(c) to allow landlords to re-adjust their accommodation needs while balancing the relative hardship to tenants.
|
