Holding

A landlord who demolishes a building under Section 12 must reconstruct it on the same site, and the tenant is entitled to re‑enter the premises upon reconstruction.

Summary

The landlord sought eviction of two shop tenants on grounds of rent default and claimed the building was required for demolition based on Vastu Shastra advice. The Rent Controller permitted eviction and demolition without ordering reconstruction, as required by Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The tenants appealed; the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the landlord must reconstruct the building after demolition, interpreting the word "and" in sub‑clause (b) of Section 12(1). It held that demolition for erecting a new building obliges the landlord to rebuild on the same site and grants the tenant a right to re‑enter upon reconstruction. Consequently, the orders of the lower courts were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

When does sub‑clause (b) of sub‑section (1) of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 require a landlord to reconstruct a demolished building?
Does the word "and" in the provision mean "or", allowing demolition without reconstruction?
Is eviction permissible on the ground of demolition without a reconstruction undertaking?

Subjects

rent controlevictiondemolitionreconstructionlandlord‑tenantSection 12Vastu Shastratenant re‑entryunreasonable eviction

Judgment

KONDETI SURYANARAYANA AND ORS. A
v.
PINNINTHI SESHAGIRI RAO

NOVEMBER 4, 1999

[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction:
'~

Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960-
Sections I 2(J)(b); I 2(2)-Eviction sought by landlord on ground that building c
was bonafide required by him for demolition as the construction of tenanted
shops on the north eastern corner of the plot was inauspicious according to
Vastu Shastra-High Court upholding the order of the Rent Controller
according permission to the landlord to demolish the building without any
direction to reconstruct the same-Appeal against-Held, where the landlord
reasonably and bonafide requires a building for the immediate purpose of D
demolishing it, he has necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the
tenant to re-enter the premises-Any interpretation to the contrary would
encourage unscrupulous landlord to get eviction of tenants unfairly which
would be repugnant to the object of the Act which aims to prevent
unreasonable eviction of the tenant from the premises-Orders of all the E
Courts below set aside.

The respondent-landlord filed petitions before the Rent Controller for
eviction of tenants from the premises on the ground that there were wilful
defaults in payment of rent. Eviction was also sought on the ground that the
building was reasonably and bona fide required by him for demolition as he F
had been advised by Pundits ofVastu Shastra that the construction of tenanted
shops on the north-eastern corner of the plot was inauspicious. The said
petitions were a!Jowed by the Rent Controller thereby according 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 Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
The appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the
G

present appeals.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the order passed by

389 H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the Courts below was 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 said
order deserves to be quashed.

On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that the word 'and' occurring
in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 was disjunctive and it had to
B be read as 'or' meaning thereby that after demolition of the building the
landlord was not required to reconstruct the building.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Where the landlord requires demolition of the building, he
C has necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the tenant to re-enter
the premises. 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.
D 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-enter the said premises. [391-H; 392-A, B)
1.2. If it were to be held that after demolition of the building the landlord
E is not required to reconstruct the building, then it would encourage
unscrupulous landlords 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 tenant from the premises.
[392-C]

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9987 and
9989 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.95 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in C.R.P. Nos. 409, 462 and 463 of 1994.

G A.T.M. Sainpath and V. Balaji for the Appellants.
'·<
M.N. Rao and Ms. B. Sunita Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H V. N. KHARE, J. The tenants are in appeal before us. The building in
KONDETI SURYANARAYANA v. P.S. RAO [V.N. KHARE, J.] 391
question consists of two shops, which is owned by the respondent-landlord. A
The respondent-landlord filed petitions before the Rent Controller for eviction
of tenants from the premises on the ground that there were wilful defaults in
payment of rent and also on the ground that building is reasonably and
bonafide required by him for demolition. The said requirement was based on
the allegations that a construction on the north-eastern comer of the plot is B
inauspicious and Pundits of Vastu Shastra advised him to demolish the said
shops as they are on the north-eastern comer 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 C
'Act').

The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed and was affirmed by
the High Court.

It is against the said judgment the tenants have come to this Court. D
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.

Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (I) and sub-section (2) of Section 12 E
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 F
to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to 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 G
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."
A perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that where a building is H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 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 (I) of Section 12 is plain and simple and does not suffer from
any ambiguity. Therefore, when a landlord requires a building to be demolished,
B 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-enter in
the said premises. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the word
"and" occurring in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 12 is disjunctive
and it has to be read as "or" meaning thereby that after demolition of the
C 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
D necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the tenant to re-enter in
the premises.

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 co\!rts below.
E The appeals are allowed with costs.

M.P. Appeals allowed.

. .