1999 JTR(SC) 1324
2000 AIR(SC) 70 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 4149 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 4194 ; 2000 1 ALD(SC) 4 ; 1999 10 JT 286 ; 2000 1 RCJ 180 ; 1999 2 RCR(Rent) 644 ; 2000 1 RentLR 319 ; 1999 7 Scale 113 ; 1999 8 SCC 658 ; 1999 SCR 389 ; 2000 WLC 125 ; 1999 KHC 1454 ; 1999 9 Supreme 240
1999(9) Supreme 240
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
V.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Kondeti Suryanarayana & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Pinninthi Seshagiri Rao -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 9987 & 9989 of 1995
Decided on 4-11-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji, Advocates.
For the Respondent : M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
An order of eviction u/s 12 of the A.P. Rent Control Act cannot be made without any direction to reconstruct building as required u/s 12(1)(b).
Act Referred :ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION CONTROL ACT : S.12(1)(b), S.12(2)(b), S.12(2)
(A) The Andhara Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960, specifically sections 12(1)(b), 12(2)(b), and 12(2), governs eviction and possession proceedings where a landlord seeks to demolish existing buildings. In this matter, the statutory scheme requires that when a building is reasonably and bona fide required for immediate demolition to erect a new building, the landlord must offer reconstructed premises to the outgoing tenant, and the tenant is entitled to re-entry upon completion. The impugned order that permitted demolition without a corresponding direction to reconstruct and re-offer possession offended this framework.
(B) Key legal principles include: sub-clause (b) of Section 12(1) mandates that demolition must be for the purpose of erecting a new building and that the tenant is entitled to re-entry after reconstruction; sub-clause (2) imposes an explicit undertaking obligation on the landlord to offer reconstructed premises within a specified period; the interpretation of and in sub-clause (b) is conjunctive, requiring both demolition and reconstruction, and any construction that encourages unreasonable eviction is repugnant to the Acts object.
Facts of the case:
The landlord filed petitions for eviction on grounds of willful rent default and that the building was reasonably and bona fide required for demolition due to inauspicious Vastu considerations. The Rent Controller allowed demolition without directing reconstruction, despite the building comprising two shops.
Findings of Court:
The lower courts erred by not enforcing the mandatory reconstruction and re-offer obligations under Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2), thereby permitting an eviction that undermined the protective object of the Act.
Issues:
Whether the word and in Section 12(1)(b) is conjunctive and whether a landlord can demolish without an obligation to reconstruct and re-offer possession; whether the Rent Controllers order violated the statutory safeguards.
Ratio Decidendi:
The conjunction and in Section 12(1)(b) requires the landlord to both demolish and reconstruct, and upon reconstruction the tenant has an indefeasible right to re-enter; any interpretation allowing demolition without reconstruction and re-offer is inconsistent with the Acts protective purpose.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the tenants are entitled to costs.
(A) The Andhara Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960, specifically sections 12(1)(b), 12(2)(b), and 12(2), governs eviction and possession proceedings where a landlord seeks to demolish existing buildings. In this matter, the statutory scheme requires that when a building is reasonably and bona fide required for immediate demolition to erect a new building, the landlord must offer reconstructed premises to the outgoing tenant, and the tenant is entitled to re-entry upon completion. The impugned order that permitted demolition without a corresponding direction to reconstruct and re-offer possession offended this framework.
(B) Key legal principles include: sub-clause (b) of Section 12(1) mandates that demolition must be for the purpose of erecting a new building and that the tenant is entitled to re-entry after reconstruction; sub-clause (2) imposes an explicit undertaking obligation on the landlord to offer reconstructed premises within a specified period; the interpretation of and in sub-clause (b) is conjunctive, requiring both demolition and reconstruction, and any construction that encourages unreasonable eviction is repugnant to the Acts object.
Facts of the case:
The landlord filed petitions for eviction on grounds of willful rent default and that the building was reasonably and bona fide required for demolition due to inauspicious Vastu considerations. The Rent Controller allowed demolition without directing reconstruction, despite the building comprising two shops.
Findings of Court:
The lower courts erred by not enforcing the mandatory reconstruction and re-offer obligations under Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2), thereby permitting an eviction that undermined the protective object of the Act.
Issues:
Whether the word and in Section 12(1)(b) is conjunctive and whether a landlord can demolish without an obligation to reconstruct and re-offer possession; whether the Rent Controllers order violated the statutory safeguards.
Ratio Decidendi:
The conjunction and in Section 12(1)(b) requires the landlord to both demolish and reconstruct, and upon reconstruction the tenant has an indefeasible right to re-enter; any interpretation allowing demolition without reconstruction and re-offer is inconsistent with the Acts protective purpose.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the tenants are entitled to costs.
JUDGMENT
V.N. Khare, J.-The tenants are in appeal before us. The building in question consists of two shops, which is owned by the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord filed petitions before the Rent Controller for eviction of tenants from the premises on the ground that there were willful defaults in payment of rent and also on the ground that building is reasonably and bona fide required by him for demolition. The said requirement was based on the allegations that a construction on the north-eastern corner of the plot is inauspicious and pundits of Vastu Shastra advised him to demolish the said shops as they are on the north-eastern corner of the plot. The Rent Controller allowed the application and accorded permission to the landlord to demolish the building without any direction to reconstruct the building as required under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
2. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed and was affirmed by the High Court.
3. It is against the said judgment the tenants have come to this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the order passed by the courts below is in conflict with the provisions of sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act and therefore the order deserves to be quashed.
4. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 12 reads as under:-
"(b) that the building consists of not more than two floors and is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date".
"(2) No order for recovery of possession under this Section shall be passed unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building on completion of the repairs, alterations or additions or the new building on its completion will be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1), for his occupation before the expiry of such period as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf."
5. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that where a building is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the said building, the tenant shall have right of re-entry in the premises on its reconstruction. The language of sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 is plain and simple and does not suffer from any ambiguity. Therefore, when a landlord requires a building to be demolished, necessarily he has to reconstruct the building on the same site of the building and on reconstruction of new building the tenant has a right to re-enmter in the said premises. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the word "and" occurring in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 is disjunctive and it has to be read as "or" meaning thereby that after demolition of the building the landlord is not required to reconstruct the building. If such interpretation is given, then it would encourage the unscrupulous landlord to get eviction of the tenants on the ground of demolition of the building which would be repugnant to the object of the Act which aims to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenant from the premises. We are, therefore, of the view that where the landlord requires demolition of the building, he has necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the tenant to re-enter in the premises.
6. In this view of the matter, the orders of the courts below deserve to be quashed. We accordingly set aside the orders of all the three courts below. The appeals are allowed with costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************