SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and Syed Mohammed Quadri, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2285 of 1998. D/d. 20.7.1999.

Om Parkash - Appellant

Versus

Basanthilal - Respondent

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960, Sections 10(3)(iii)(b) and 10(3)(iii)(c) - Bonafide need of landlord - Pleadings - Different requirements to be satisfied under different statutory provisions in Rent Act - Bonafide need of tenanted premises to start a business and bonafide for additional accommodation for residential purposes or for business landlord already carrying on where landlord is in occupation of part of building and tenant of other part - A perusal of the provisions of Section 10(3)(iii)(b) and (c) would show that both are mutually exclusive and operate in different fields - The ingredients of both the clauses are different and distinct - However, one of the ingredients may be overlapping - For purposes of seeking relief of eviction under Section 10(3)(iii)(b), a landlord has to satisfy different requirements than the requirements contemplated under Section 10(3)(iii)(c) of the Act - The High Court without maintaining the distinction between the two provisions of the aforesaid two separate clauses proceeded to decide the case of the landlord under Section 10(3)(iii)(c) of the Act without there being any foundation to that effect - Approach of the High Court, according to our view, was not legally correct.

[Para 4]

ORDER

V.N. Khare, J. - The appellant herein is the tenant, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the premises on the ground that he required the said non-residential accommodation for the purpose of setting up a new business for his son who was unemployed. The said petition was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The appeal against the said order was also rejected. The respondent landlord filed a revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The High Court allowed the revision petition after setting aside the trial court's as well as the appellate court's judgments.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High Court had totally misdirected itself in deciding the case of the landlord under Section 10(3)(iii)(c), whereas the case of the landlord was founded upon Section 10(3)(iii)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the judgment suffers from legal infirmity.

3. We have perused the petition for eviction filed by the landlord and find that the eviction was sought under Sections 10(2)(iii)(v) (sic) and (3)(iii)(b) of the Act. Para 2 of the said petition runs as under:

"That the son of petitioner Shiv Kumar has left his studies few years back and since then he is sitting with the petitioner in his cloth shop ?B.S. GUPTA? situated adjacent to suit premises at Patel Market, Hyderabad. That said Shiv Kumar has gained much experience in cloth business and he intends to start a separate cloth business of his own and for this purpose the petitioner bona fidely requires the suit malgi in possession of the respondent. The suit malgi is most suitable one for commencing the abovesaid business as it is situated in cloth market. Further the petitioner is having sufficient funds to provide it for the business to be evicted on this ground of personal requirement of the petitioner."

The aforesaid averments clearly show that the case of the landlord for eviction against the tenant was founded upon under Section 10(3)(iii)(b) of the Act.

4. A perusal of the provisions of Section 10(3)(iii)(b) and (c) would show that both are mutually exclusive and operate in different fields. The ingredients of both the clauses are different and distinct. However, one of the ingredients may be overlapping. For purposes of seeking relief of eviction under Section 10(3)(iii)(b), a landlord has to satisfy different requirements than the requirements contemplated under Section 10(3)(iii)(c) of the Act. The High Court without maintaining the distinction between the two provisions of the aforesaid two separate clauses proceeded to decide the case of the landlord under Section 10(3)(iii)(c) of the Act without there being any foundation to that effect. This approach of the High Court, according to our view, was not legally correct.

5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside and we order accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the High Court for decision of the revision, on merits. Since the matter is pending for a considerably long period, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, if possible.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

.