Holding

The Supreme Court held that although the facts required by s.10(3)(a)(iii) must be pleaded and proved, the failure to do so cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and consequently the eviction order stands.

Summary

The respondents, a father and son, filed an eviction petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for a shop‑room to start a readymade‑garments business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, a decision affirmed by the Subordinate Judge, the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the appellate authority. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the petition failed to plead the specific facts required by sub‑clause (iii) – namely that the landlord was not occupying any other non‑residential building and that no suitable alternative existed. The Court held that while such facts must be pleaded and proved, the omission could not be raised for the first time at the stage of a special leave petition, and therefore the lower courts’ order was not disturbed. The appeal was dismissed, but execution of the eviction was stayed until 31 March 1988 subject to the tenant’s written undertaking to vacate and pay damages.

Issues considered

The petition under s.10(3)(a)(iii) must plead and prove the landlord’s non‑occupancy of any other non‑residential building and the lack of a suitable alternative.
Whether a failure to plead those facts, raised for the first time on appeal, is a ground to set aside the eviction order.
The proper construction of s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10(3)(a)(iii), s. 21
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 12(1)(m)

Subjects

evictionlandlord's own occupationnon‑residential buildingpleadingsspecial leave petitionAndhra Pradesh Buildings Act

Judgment

A DUGGI VEERA VENKATA GOPALA SATYANARAYANA
v.
SAKALA VEERA RAGHAV AIAH & ANR. -...(
DECEMBER 19, 1986

B [llANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]

Andhra Pradesh Buildings, (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1960, s.10(3)(a)(iii)-Non-residential building-Eviction of tenant +
on the ground of Landlord's own occupation-Facts to be pleaded in
petition and proved at the trial.
c The respondents r.Jed an eviction petition against the appellant-
tenant in respect of a shop-room under s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra 'r
-
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, rent and eviction) Control Act 1960 on the
ground of bona fide requirement for starting a husiness in readymade ....,,.
garments. The Rent Controller, passed the eviction ordei' against the
D appellant holding that the respondents required the suit shop for their
personal occupation. The Appellate Authority as well as the High Court
affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller in the appeal and revision
respectively.

In appeal to this Court by the appellant-tenant, it was contended
E for the first time that since there was no averment of the facts constitut-
ing the grounds or conditions of eviction as contained in sub-s. (3)(a)(iii)
of s.10 of the Act, the courts below were not justified in passing the
...
order of eviction against the appellant.

Dismissing the appeal,
F
HELD: 1. Under the law of pleadings facts mentioned in sub-cl.(iii)
of s.10(3)(a) of the Act are to be pleaded in the petition and thereafter
proved at the trial for the purpose of an order of eviction against the
tenant. Further, any amount of proof offered without appropriate )\·
''
pleading is generally of no relevance. Therefore, the landlord has to
G plead and establish (i) that be bona fide requires the accommodation let
to the tenant for non-residential purposes for the purpose of continuin;g
or starting the business; and (ii) that be bas no other reasonably suitable
non-residential accommodation of his own in bis occupation in the city
or the town concerned. [677H; 678A-B]

H Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCR 601, relied upon,

-
674
•
D.V.V.G. SAl;YANARAYANA '· S.V. RAGHAVAIAH IDUTI,J.] 675

2. The point regarding absence of any averment of the facts A
~ constituting the grounds or conditions of eviction as contained in sub-
s.(3)(a)(iii) of s. IO of the Act was not taken in any of the courts below nor
has it been taken in the Special Leave Petition. For the first time, it has
been raised .in the argument. Therefore, there. is no justification to
interfere with the order of eviction. [679D]
B
-t" In the instant case, the respondents did not suppress any faCt at
the trial and disclosed the non-residential buildings owned by the re-
spondent no. I but not in their occupation. Indeed it is the case of the
respondents that the djsputed shop-room is centrally located in the
heart of Guntur city in a business locality, that there are a number of
-.( readymade garment shops in that locality, and that the disputed shop- c
room is the best place for commencing such a business. It has also been
observed by the High Court that the respondents have come forward
~ with a clean and clear case and with reasons as to why they chose the
disputed shop-room for the proposed business to be commenced by the
resi>ondent No. 2. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant that if he is
given an opportunity to adduce.. further evidence after amendment of D
pleadings, he would be able to furnish any new material showing that
the respondents are occupying any non-residential building suitable for
commencing the proposed business therein and, as such, they are not
entitled to an order for eviction. In view of the aforesaid facts also, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed. [67SE-H]
~ E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civi.l Appeal No. 2714
of 1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2. 1984 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.
2053 of 1981. F

··:r·
I
T,V.S.N. Chari for the Appellant.

Govind Mukhoty, P.K. Gupta and K.V. Upendra Gupta for the
·Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

...( DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment bf the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the revision
petition of the appellant against the order of the Subordinate Judge,
Guntur, whereby he affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987) lS.C.R.
'
Guntur, directing the eviction of the appellant from the disputed shop-
A -<f
room.

The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively the father and
son. The respondents filed a petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
B 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', before the Rent Controller,
Guntur, praying for an order of eviction against the appellant from the
disputed shop-room on the ground that it was bona fide required for
+
the respondent No.2, who had passed the B.Com. examination, and
would start a business in readymade garments in the disputed shop-
room. The petition was contested by the appellant. It was inter alia
denied by the appellant that the shop-room was bona fide required by
c the respondents as alleged. )- -
The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence
adduced by the parties passed the eviction order against the appellant
holding, inter alia, as follows:-
""
D
"Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence I had no
two minds in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners
required the suit shop for their personal occupation,
namely, for the business of P.W.2. I find there is an ele-
ment of need and it is a bona fide one and not actuated by
E any ·oblique motive. I find there is absolute necessity for J.i..
P.W.2 to have his business in the suit shop. Thus, I find
the petitioners had brought home the point in their
favour. I find that there are valid grounds to order evic-
tion of the respondent." ·-
F Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Rent Control-
ler, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge,
....,,,.
Guntur, who, however, affirmed the findings of the learned Rent r.on- \\
!roller and dismissed the appeal. The appellant preferred a revision
petition under section 21 of the Act before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. As stated
G already, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this
appeal by special leave.

The only point that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is
that in the absence of any averment of the facts constituting the
grounds or conditions of eviction, as contained in sub-section(3)(a)(iii)
H of section 10 of the Act, the courts below were not justified in passing
D.V.V.G. SATYANARAYANA v. S.V. RAGHAVAJAH {DUTI,J.) 677

,... the order of eviction against the appellant. Sub-section(3)(a)(iii) pr-0- A
vides as follows:-

"(3)(a). A landlord may, subject to the provmons of
clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order direct_ing
the tanant to put the landlord in possession of the buil-
B
+ ding:- .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .
~

(iii) in case it is any other non'residentiru building, if the
landlord is not occupying a non-residentiru 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 c
otherwise-

(a) for the purpose of bussiness which he iscarrying on, on
the date of the application, or

(b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of D
the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to
commence."

[The provisos are not relevant for our purpose and, as
such, they are omitted.]
E
The conditions which. are necessary to be fulfilled for the purpose of
getting an order of eviction under sub-clause (iii) are:-

(I) The building is a non-residential building.

(2) The landlord is not occupying a non-residential build- F
·:-f
j
ing in the city, town or village concerned, either
belonging to him or to the possession of which he is
entitled under the Act or otherwise.

(3) Either he requires the building for the purpose of busi-
ness which he is carrying on or he bona fide proposes to c
commence a business.
-{
There can be no doubt that under the law of pleadings facts
mentioned in sub-clause (iii) are to be pleaded in the petition and
thereafter proved at the trial for the purpose of an order of eviction
against the tenant. In a decision of this Court in Hasmat Rai v. H·
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C.R.

A
Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCR 605, it has been observed by Desai, J.
that in order to obtain an order of eviction of a tenant under section
12(1)(m) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the
landlord has to plead and establish (i) that he bona fide requires the
accommodation let to.the tenant for non-residential purposes for the
purpose of continuing or starting his business; and (ii) that he has no
B other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in
his occupation in the city or the town concerned. Further, it has been
+
observed that any amount of proof offered without appropriate plead-
ing is generally of no relevance. We respectfully agree with the above
statement of law and reiterate the same. We are, however, not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order of eviction in the instant case for
the reasons stated hereinafter.
-
c
y
The point was not taken in any of the courts below, nor has it
been taken in the special leave petition. For the first time, it has been
raised in the argument before us. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, has produced before us a copy of
D the memorandum of Civil Revision Petition that was filed in th1! High
Court. We do not, however, find that the point has been specifically
taken in the grounds of revision. It is not disputed .that the point was
not also argued before the High Court.

It is true that all the ingredients of sub-section(3)(a)(iii) of sec- ""'.
E · lion JO have not been pleaded in the petition for eviction. The respon-
dents have only pleaded their bona fide requirement of the disputed
shop-room for the purpose of commencing a business therein. Tbere is
no pleading that the respondents are not occupying any non-resi-
dential building in the city, town or village concerned either belonging
to them or to the possession of which they are entitled under the Act.
-
F The respondents, however, did not suppress any fact at the trial and
disclosed the non-residential buildings owned by the respondent No. I, ~
but not in their occupation. It has also been observed by the High
Court that the respondents have come forward with a clean and clear
case.and with reasons as to why they chose the disputed shop-room for
the proposed business to be commenced by the respondent No. 2.
G Even if we set aside the eviction order and send the case back on
remand to the Rent Controller allowing the parties to amend the
pleadings and to adduce further evidence, it will be a futile exercise ).-
inasmuch as all the materials are already on record. It is not the case of
the appellant that if he is given an opportunity to adduce further
evidence after amendment of pleadings, he would be able to furnish
H any new material showing that the respondents are occupying any
D.V.V.G. SATYANARAYANA v. S.V. RAGHA\IAIAH [DUTT,J.) 679

7' non-residential building suitable for commencing the proposed busi- A·
ness therein and, as such, they are not entitled to an order for eviction.
It is also not in dispute that the other non-residential buildings belong-
ing to the respondent No. 1 are in occupation of tanants. The principal .
contention of the appellant before the courts below was that the
respondents had no resasonable justification for choosing the disputed B
-+- shop-room for the purpose of commencing a business therein for the
respondent No. 2. This contention has been overruled by the courts
below and also by the High court inasmuch as the respondents had
given sufficient reasons for selecting the disputed sh0p-room for the
purpose of commencing a business in readymade gannents. Indeed, it
is the case of the respondents that tlie disputed shop-room is centrally
~ located in the heart of Guntur city in a business locality, that there are c
a number of readymade gannent shops in that locality, and that_ the
"f disputed shop-room is the best place for commencing such a business.

In view of the facts stated above, particularly of the fact that the
point was not raised at any stage of the proceedings, we do not think
D
that we shall be justified in interfering with the order of eviction.

For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
,_. We, however, direct that the order for eviction of the appellant
E
from the disputed shop-room shall not be executed till March 31, 1988
provided the appellant gives an undertaking to this Court in writing
within four weeks from date that he will vacate ·and deliver up vacant
-:':..... and peacel\11 possession of the disputed shop-room on or before March
3-1, 1988 and regularly keep paying the respondents monthly damages
calculated anhe rate of rent for use and occupation in the meanwhile.
F

? M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.

'.