Karumuri Appalaraju Petitioner v. Challa Sambhuratnamurthy .

(1) This revision arises out of an order made by the district judge, west godavari, in an application for eviction, under the provisions of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act (hereinafter referred to as ' the act'). The facts which have given rise to this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. There is a small room which originally served as a passage, attached to the residential portion of the respondent's house situated within the limits of the palacol municipality, to which the provisions of the act have been made applicable. On the 2nd november, 1946, the respondent leased out this room to the petitioner for the purpose of his cloth business. There is no document evidencing the lease ; but it is common ground that the lease was for a period of four years on a monthly rental of rs. 15. It was agreed between the parties that if the lease was extended for a further period, the petitioner should pay an increased rent of rs. 30 per month.

(2) The landlord filed an application before the rent controller, narsapur, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on a two - fold ground: (1) that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent, and (2) that he required the premises for his own occupation. The proceeding for eviction, which was thus initiated before the rent controller, had a chequered career. For the present purpose, it is not necessary to trace the history of that proceeding except to state that eventually the rent controller found that the petitioner had not committed default in the payment of rent. He, however, held that the landlord required the premises for his personal occupation and accordingly made an order for eviction. The appellate authority concurred with the finding on the first question, but on the second he held that the premises having been let out for non - residential purposes, namely, for housing a cloth shop, the landlord could not ask for possession of the premises for purposes of his residence. In revision, the district judge, west godavari, on a consideration of the material provisions of the act, held that the landlord could seek recovery of possession of any portion of his house even if it was leased out for a non - residential purpose. He found that having regard to the situation of the room, which was earlier being used as a passage, the landlord's requirement was bona fide. Accordingly, he made an ordei for possession in favour of the landlord.

(3) It is argued by mr. Suryanarayanamurthy, learned counsel for the tenant, that in respect of the portion of a house let out for non - residential purposes, the landlord cannot ask for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he requiries it for residential purposes. Now, section 7 of the act is designed to give security of tenure to occupants of buildings situated within certain cities and towns and restricts the right of landlords to recover possession of such buildings. Sub - section (2) of section 7 enumerates the various grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant. Broadly speaking, those grounds are non - payment of rent, sub - letting in whole or in part, using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which the building was let, acts of waste, nuisance, non - occupation for the period specified without reasonable cause and denial of title of the landlord. The provisions of section 7 which are material for the purposes of this case may now be set out.

"7 (3) (a) a landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d) apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building - (i) in case it is a residential building, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation and if he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned ; ***** (iii) in case it is any other non - residential building, if the landlord is not occupying for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, a non - residential building in the city, town or village concerned - which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this act or otherwise. ****** (c) a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non - residential, may, notwithstanding anythng contained in clause (a) , apply to the controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be."

(4) Under section 7 (3) (a) , the landlord cannot obtain eviction of his tenant from a residential building unless he wants the same for his own residence, and in case of a non - residential building, unless he wants it for purposes of his business. But sub - clause (c) , which was introduced by the amendment act of 1951 does not contain any such limitation. Under sub - clause (c) if the landlord could satisfy the controller that he wants additional accommodation in the same building, a portion of which is already under his occupation, it is open to him to re - adjust the additional accommodation in a manner convenient to him, and it cannot be insisted that the additional accommodation sought for should be used by the landlord for the same purpose for which the tenant, sought to be evicted, was using. It is, no doubt, true that this is subject to the balance of convenience and relative hardship, which are set out in the proviso, which reads :

"provided that, in the case of an application under clause (c) , the controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord."

(5) It is necessary to note that section 7 (3) (c) which entitles a landlord to ask for additional accommodation, contains a non obstante clause which is " notwithstanding anything contained in clause 3 (a) ". As already noted, under section 7 (3) (a) the landlord cannot ask for possession of residential buildings for business purposes. So too, he cannot ask for possession of non - residential buildings for residential purposes. What is provided in clause (c) of sub - section (3) of section 7 overrides the prohibition contained in clause (a) of sub - section (3) of section 7. On a fair reading of the provisions of section 7 (3) (c) , it must be held that whereas a condition as to bona fide requirement should be satisfied even in the case of additional acommodation, the other conditions and restrictions set out in clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 7 do not apply to cases covered by clause (c) of sub - section (3) of section 7.

(6) Mr. Suryanaranamurthy placed reliance on the words " as the case may be " occurring at the end of clause (c) of sub - section (3) of section 7 and argued that these words must be read distributively and that if so read, it would mean thar a landlord in possession of residential accommodation, whether in whole or in part of a building, cannot ask for possession of the non - residential premises for purposes, of additional accommodation. I am unable to agree with his contention. As i have already pointed out, the centra - distinction between section 7 (3) (a) and section 7 (3) (c) is clear, and that is, that in the case of additional accommodation, the prohibition contained in section 7 (3) (a) , that a landlord shall not ask for a non - residential accommodation for residential purposes, shall not apply in the case of clause (c) of sub - section (3) of section 7. In this view, the conclusion reached by the learned revisional authority is, to my mind, correct. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.