Noting that there is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business, the Supreme Court uphled the eviction order on the ground that landlord's son wanting to start a business while studying falls under 'bonafide requirement/need'.
The Division Bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian while sitting in appeal against one High Court order wherein it allowed the revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and set aside an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in favour of landlord.
The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on two grounds namely:
(1) wilful default in payment of rent;
(2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the own use of the landlord
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and ordered eviction. In a revision filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Act, the High Court set aside the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore present appeal.
On dispute of agreed monthly rent amount, the High Court leaned on respondent-tenant's claim that it was ₹1,600/- per month rather than appellant-landlord's of ₹3,200/-.
The appellant had relied on a letter of Attornment of Tenancy issued by the previous owner from whom the property was purchased.
The High Court held that this letter of Attornment of Tenancy was not sufficient to prove the monthly rent to be Rs.3,200/- and felt that the previous landowner ought to have been examined by the appellant in this regard.
The Court took exception to the above and noted that purchase of the building by the appellant in September 2013 is not disputed. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to rely upon the letter of Attornment of Tenancy.
"In fact the letter of Attornment of Tenancy is addressed to the respondent-tenant with a copy marked to the appellant. Therefore, the High Court was wrong in reversing the finding given by the Appellate Authority in this regard", the Court added.
The Court also didn't agree with the take of High Court on the second ground that the eldest son of the appellant was still pursuing studies and therefore the requirement of the appellant was not bona fide.
"Again we do not agree with the aforesaid finding. There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business. The High Court, for a moment did not realize that it was dealing with a revision, where its jurisdiction was limited."
The appeal was thus allowed accordingly and High Court order set aside as 'unsustainable'.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
