Vemana Veerabhadrulu v. Kancherla Ramarao And Another .

1. The petitioner in the above C.R P. is the tenant of a non-residential building bearing Municipal Door No. 6/205 situate in Rajahmundry. The respondent-landlord is the owner of two other non-residential buildings, 6/185 and 6/206. Further he took on lease a non-residential premises bearing Municipal No. 6/207. The respondent was evicted from the occupation of the premises bearing Municipal Door No. 6/207, as per the order of the Subordinate Judge Rajahmundry in C.M.A No. 32/54. Thereupon he filed an application (H.R.C M.P No. 116/54) under Section 7 Cl. 3(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act of 1949, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from door No. 6/205, on two grounds, namely that he required it for his own occupation, and that the tenant was liable to eviction by reason of his sub-letting the premises without the landlord's knowledge and consent. The Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, by order dated 30-11-1954, held that the respondent-landlord needed the premises in question for his personal occupation and for re-modelling his godowns. He therefore, directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises on or before 15th February, 1955. An appeal was filed by the tenant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in C.M.A No. 5 of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge, held that inasmuch as the landlord admittedly owned and was in occupation of two godowns other than the one in the occupation of the tenant for carrying on his business, he was not entitled to have an order for eviction passed against the tenant. He found further, that there was no sub-letting by the tenant as alleged by the landlord. Against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the landlord filed a revision under Section 12(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act before the District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry. The learned District Judge held that even though the landlord owned two other godowns bearing municipal door numbers 6/185 and 6/206, he required 6/205 for his use and that further under sub-section 3(c) of Section 7, the landlord who occupied only a portion of a building can apply to the Controller for being placed in possession of the remaining part of the building if he required additional accommodation for his residential purpose or for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on. In the result, he set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and directed the tenant to quit the premises by 1st of March, 1956. It is against that order that the present C.R.P has been filed.

2. Mr. G. Chandrasekhara Sastry, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised before me three contentions. First, that on the facts found, viz., that the landlord owns two other godowns, the order of eviction is manifestly opposed to the terms of Section 7, Clause 3(a)(iii), secondly, that the premises bearing municipal door number 6/205 is not a part of a building within the meaning of Section 7(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1949, and thirdly, that if the case should fall under Section 7(3)(c) it was necessary for the Court to determine whether the hardship caused to the tenant by granting the application of the landlord for eviction will out-weigh the advantage to the landlord within the meaning of the 1st provision to Section 7(3)(c).

3. Sri T. Anantha Babu, the learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the learned District Judge found, as a fact, that without the premises in question viz., 6/205 the landlord could not effectively carry on his business, and in view of that finding no interference is called for in the present revision petition. He further contended that Section 7(3)(a)(iii) should be interpreted liberally and the mere fact of the landlord possessing other godowns should not bar an application for eviction if the other godowns are not suitable or effective for carrying on his business.

4. After careful consideration, I am of the view that the contentions of the petitioner's counsel should prevail. The terms of Section 7(3)(a)(iii) are clear and mandatory. A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of a non-residential building only if he is occupying for the purpose of his business 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 the Act or otherwise. On the finding of the courts below that the petitioner owns godowns bearing Municipal door No. 6/185 and 6/206, the landlord cannot be given the relief he prayed for. The learned District Judge, has observed that the godown bearing municipal door number 6/185 does not face the main road and that by reason of the order of the eviction passed against the landlord in respect of door number 6/207, door No. 6/185 had been deprived of effective user and that the landlord has a bona fide case for wanting to be put in possession of 6/205. He further observed that the premises bearing municipal door No. 6/206 is no substitute for the premises in question. I do not think that there is any justification for importing these considerations into the question as to whether under the terms of Section 7(3)(a)(iii) a landlord can ask for the eviction of a tenant. He can do so only in terms of the sub-section. It is not open to the landlord to pick and choose from among the non-residential buildings in his possession. If he is found to be in possession of other nonresidential buildings, he cannot apply for eviction of the tenant and the court would have no jurisdiction to order such an eviction.

5. The Lease & Rent Control Act is intended to regulate the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and to control rents of such buildings and to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom. While the Act assures the tenant continuance in possession and protects him from unreasonable evictions, it also confers upon the landlord certain rights to obtain orders of eviction. The rights of the tenants and the landlords alike are regulated by statute and should be strictly construed. It is not permissible to enlarge the scope of the provisions by importation into them considerations of expediency or convenience which are not warranted by the terms and tenor of the statutory provisions.

6. In the view that I have taken of the applicability of Section 7 Cl. 3(a)(iii), I do not think it is necessary to discuss the two other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

7. In the result, I hold that the order of the eviction passed by the District Judge is not correct and that it should be set aside. The C.R.P is, therefore allowed, but in the circumstances without costs.

K.S.R

8. Order set aside.