Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court gravely erred in reversing the factual findings on the landlord's bona fide need and the mala fide nature of the tenants' permanent tenancy claim, and therefore set aside the High Court’s order.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by landlady Fatima Bee against the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had set aside earlier findings that she required the non‑residential premises bona fide for her bangle‑manufacturing business and that the tenants' claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide. The lower Rent Controller and Appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence, had held that the landlady indeed needed the premises for her business and that the tenants' assertions of a sale agreement and permanent tenancy were false. The High Court reversed these findings, stating insufficient evidence of the area required and suggesting the permanent tenancy claim had some support. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in re‑appreciating the evidence and in overturning the factual findings, noting that the proviso to Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(vi) make a mala fide claim of permanent tenancy a separate ground for eviction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court’s order set aside, and the original eviction orders restored.

Issues considered

The High Court's reversal of the Rent Controller's finding on the landlady's bona fide need under s.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
Whether the tenants' claim of permanent tenancy constitutes a mala fide ground for eviction under the proviso to s.10(1) and s.10(2)(vi).
Whether the tenants denied the title of the landlord, thereby justifying eviction.
The adequacy of evidence required to establish the landlord's bona fide requirement of premises.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10(1) proviso, s. 10(2)(vi), s. 10(3)(a)(iii)

Subjects

rent controlevictionbona fide requirementpermanent tenancymala fide claimlandlord-tenant disputeevidence appraisalAndhra Pradesh Buildings Act

Judgment

SMT. FATIMA BEE A
v.
MAHAMOOD SIDDIQUI ETC.

JULY 24, 1996

[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, .l.T.] B

. Rent and Eviction :

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
1960: c
Ss. JO( I.I Proviso, 10(2) and 10(3)--Non-residential premises-Eviction
fron1-Bo11a fide requirenient-Landlady requbing pren1ises to carry on her
on,,n business-Tenants raising a nzala fide plea of pennanent tenancy as also
denying title of land lad;~Held, Rent Controller and the appellate cowt, after
appreciating the 1ival evidence, 1ightly recorded findings of fact that landlady D
bona fide required suit pren1ises for canying on her own business and tenants
were liable to vacate the pren1ises-Mata fide clabn of 11en11anent tenancy is
also a separate ground for eviction apmt from denial of title of landlord.

The appellant-landlady filed three petitions under s.10(3) of the
E
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960,
for eviction of three tenants from her nonaresidential premises on the
ground that she required the suit premises bona fide for carrying on her
own business. It was stated that she did not have any other non-residential
premises nor was she carrying on the business in the residential premises.
The Rent Controller allowed the petitions and directed the tenants to F
vacate the premises. The tenants filed appeals. Meanwhile the appellant
also tiled three other eviction petitions against the said three tenants
under s.10 of the Act alleging that the tenants had taken false pleas in their
written statements in the appeals that the landlady had entered into an
agreement with them for sale of the suit property and they had a right of G
permanent tenancy; and that they denied that they were tenants or the
premises. The Rent Controller allowed the petitions. The tenants chal-
lenged the orders by filing appeals. The appellate Court dismissed all the
six appeals. The tenants filed six revision applications in the High Court.

The Revision petitions of one of the tenants were dismissed as there H
·, 857
858 SUPREME COURT REPOr<Ts (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A was a finding that he had sublet the premises and had also defaulted in
pay1nent of rent. 'fhe revision applications of the other tenants \Yere
allowed by the High Court holding that they had not denied the ownership
of the appellant and by raising a pica that they were not the tenants in
respect of the premises it could not be said that they had denied her title.
As regards the bona fide need of the landlady, the High Court held that
B
finding of the Courts below on this point was not based on relevant
evidence rclal'ing to the needs of the business nor n·as it shon'n as to hon·
n1uch area \l'as required and, as such, reqnirements of Section
..
10(3)(a)(iii) (a) were not made out. Aggrievrd, the landlady tiled the
present appeals.
c
Allon'ing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1.1. High Court con1n1itted a grave error in reversing the
finding regarding bona fide rt'tjuirement of the landlady. The Rent Con·
troller after appreciating: the evidence led on behalf of the parties had
D recorded the findings that the landlady was carQing on business aloni,•with
other family men1hers and she ret1uired the suit premises bona fide for
carrying on her business. These findings "'ere contirn1ed hy the appellate
court again after appreciating the evidence. No part of the evidence was
misread by the courts belcnv. Therefore, there \Vas no justification for the
E High Court to reverse the said findings of fact. [862-A-B]
1.2. It was stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the landlady
that their bangle business was carried on from three different shops and
they intend to carry on the said business from the suit premises. It was
not even put to these vi'itnesses that a lesser area would be sufficient for
F the purpose of carQing on that business. It was, therefore, improper for
the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact in this behalf on the
ground that the landlady had not shown how much area she required for
carrying on her business. [862-D-E]

2. As regards the claim of the tenants that they have a right of
G permanent tenancy, what they have stated in their evidence is that when the
landlady purchased the suit premises she and her husband had assured
not to evict them. The husband of the landlady who was examined as a
witness had clearly denied in his evidence that any such assurance was
given to the tenants. The Rent Controller and the appellate court after
H appreciating the rival evidence believed the evidence led on behalf of the
•
FATIMA BEE v. MAHAMOODSIDDIQUI[NANAVATf,J.] 859

landlady. The finding recorded in this behalf was again a finding of fact. A
The J-ligh Court in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the finding
on this point obviously \Vent beyond its jurisdiction. Further, the suit
premises were purchased at a court auction and at that tin1e there "'as no
reason for the purchaser, that is, the landlady or her husband, to give such
an assurance to the tenants. [862-F-H; 863-A]
B

.. 3. The High Court also appears to have overlooked the correct posi-
tion that according to the proviso to Section 10(1), and s.10(2)(vi) of the
Act, n1a!a fide clailn of peruu.1ncnt tenancy is also a separate ground for
eviction, apart from denial of title to the landlord. [863-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9742-43 c
of 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.94 of the Andina Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 757 and 758 of 1994.

K. Madhava Raddy, D. Prakash Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the D
Appellant.

P.N. Lekhi and M.K. Garg for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
NANAVATI, J. Leave granted.

These four appeals arise out of a common order passed by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court and, therefore, they are heard together and
disposed of by this judgment. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.
8946-47 of 1995 are filed against the order passed by the High Court in F
• C.R.P. Nos. 757 and 758 of 1994 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 9373-74 of 1995 are filed against the order passed by the High Court
in C.R.P. Nos. 759 and 760 of 1994. The High Court reversed the findings
recorded by the courts below, set aside the judgment and orders passed by
the Appellate Court and dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the G
respondent therein.

The appellant is the owner of two non-residential buildings bearing
Nos. 21-2-372 and 21-2-373 situated in Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. Both the
buildings have two floors. Mah mood Siddiqui is the tenant of both the
floors of the building bedring No. 21-2-373. Omer Siddiqui is the tenant of H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the ground floor and Ahmad Khan is the tenant of the first floor of the
building bearing No. 21-2-372. The appellant along with her husband and
other family mc1nbcrs is engaged in the business of 1nanufacluring an<l
selling Bangles. The said family business is carried on in three rented
premises. As the landlords of the said premises were pressing them to
B vacate the same and as it \Vas inconvenient to carry on their business from
those three different places the appellant first requested and then gave a
notice lo them to vacate the suit premises. As the tenants did not vacate
she filed three separate eviction petitions being R.C. Nos. 136, 142 and 135
of 1980 under Section 10(3) of the Andiua Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the
C Court of the Second Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad stating that
she requires the suit pre1nises bona fide for carrying on her business. The
Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence on record held tbat the
landlady does not own any other non-residential premises and that she is
nol carrying on her business in the residential pren1ises occupied by her.
D The Rent Controller further held that the claim of the landlady that she
requires the suit premises for her personal occupation for carrying on her
business is bona fide and genuine. He, therefore, allowed the eviction
petitions and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises. These
eviction orders were passed by the Rent Controller on 11.4.1989. Against
these orders of eviction Mahamood Siddiqui, Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad
E Khan filed R.A. Nos. 237, 238 and 236 of 1989 respectively.

Meanwhile, the appellant had also filed three other eviction petitions
being R.C. Nos. 1776, 1777 and 1785 of 1986 against Mahamood Siddiqui,
Omer Siddiqui and Ahmad Khan respectively under Section 10 of the Act
F as the said tenants had taken up a false plea in their written statements
filed in R.C. Nos. 136, 142 and 135 of 1980 that the landlady had entered
into an agreement with them for sale of the suit property, and that they
have a right of permanent tenancy. Mahamood had further denied that he
was a tenant of premises bearing No. 21-2-373 and Omer had denied his
tenancy in respect of premises bearing No. 21-2-372. The Rent Controller
G held that the landlady was able to establish the relationship of landlord and
tenant between them as claimed and thus denial of her title by those two
tenants was mala fide. The Rent controller also held that the tenants have
failed to establish their claim that the landlady had agreed to sell the suit
premises to them and that she had promised them not to evict. The Rent
H Controller also held that claim of permanent tenancy was ma/a fide and

'
' .. FATIMA BEE v. MAHAMOOD SIDDIQUI [NANAVATI,J.] 861

not bona fide. Therefore, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions A
on those grounds and left open the question whether raising the plea of
agreement to sell amounted lo nuisance or not. The tenants feeling ag-
grieved by the decision of the Rent Controller appealed to the Court of
the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
B
All the appeals were heard together. The Appellate Court confirmed
the findings regarding tenancy and bmw fide fide requirement of the
landlady. The appellate court also held that denial of landlady's title and
claim of permanent tenancy were ma/a fide. All the appeals were, there~
fore, dismissed.
c
The tenants then preferred six separate revision applications in the
Andhra Pradesh High Court. They were heard together by the High Court
and were disposed of by a common order. In view of the additional finding
recorded in the case of Ahmad Khan that he had sub-let the premises of
which he was a tenant and had also defaulted in payment of rent the High D
Court dismissed his Revision Application Nos. 761 and 762 of 1994 and
upheld the order of eviction passed against him. In the revision applications
filed by Mahamood Siddiqui and Mohd. Omer Siddiqui the High Court
held that the tenants had not denied that Fatima Bee is the owner of the
suit premises and that by raising a plea that they were not the tenants in
respect of the premises described by her in her applications, it cannot be E
said that they had denied her title. The High Court also held that raising
of the plea that there was an agreement for sale did not amount to denial
of landlady's title. As regards the claim of permanent tenancy the High
Court held that there was some evidence in this case lo support it and,
therefore, it cannot be regarded as a mala fide claim. On the question of F
bona fide need the High Court held that the finding of the courts below on
this point was "not based on relevant evidence relating to the needs of the
business, even if it is considered that the business of the husband was that
of the wife." The High Court further held that "the requirements of Section
l0(3)(a)(iii)(a) have not been made out, inasmuch as the satisfaction of the
rent controller relating to the bona fide needs of the landlord was not G
supported by relevant evidence inasmuch as the area of the premises
required for carrying on the business is not stated in the evidence on
~ record. Since that omission vitiates the findings of the authorities below,
these findings cannot be taken as binding in these procee<lings 11 • Taking this

. view the High Court allowed the revision applications filed by them. H
8G2 S\J!'REMI' COURT REPORTS [19'!6J SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court
con1n1iHed not only an error of la\V but \Vent beyond its jurisdiction in
re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the finding regarding the bona
fide requirement of the landlady. The High Court also committed a grave
error in doubting correctness of the finding recorded by the courts below
that she is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bangles
B
along \Vith her family me1nbers. In our opinion_, this contention raised on
behalf of the appellant deserves to be accepted. We are also of the opinion
that the High Court commiltcJ a grave error in rcver~ing the finding that
the claim of permanent tenancy was ma/a fide. The Rent Controller after
appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the landlady and that of the
C tenants had recorded the finding that the landlady requires that suit
premises bona fide for carrying on h:r business. The Rent Controller had
also recorded the finding after appreciating the rival evidence that she was
carrying on business as averred by her along with other family members.
These were the findings of facts recorded after appreciation of evidence.
D These findings were confirmed by the appellate court again after appreciat-
ing the e\odence. No part of the evidence was misread by the courts below.
Therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to reverse the said
findings of facts. It was stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the
landlady that their bangle business was carried on from three different
shops. It was further stated by them that they intend to carry on the said
E business from the suit pren1ises. It \vas not even put to these \Vitnesses that
a lesser area would be sufficient for the purpose of carrying on that
business. It was, therefore, improper for the High Court to interfere with
the findings of fact in this behalf on the ground that the landlady has not
sho\vn ho\V n1uch area she requires for carrying on her business.
F
As regards the claim of the tenants that they have a right of per-
manent tenancy \Vhat they have stated in their evidence is that \Vhen the
landlady purchased the suit premises she and her husband had assured
them that they will •1ot evict them. The husband of the landlady who was
exan1ined as a witness had clearly denied in his evidence that any such
G assurance was given to the tenants. The Rent Controller and the appellate
court after appreciating the rival evidence thought it fit to beiieve the
evidence led on behalf of the landlady. The finding recorded in this behalf
\Vas again a finding of fact. The High Court in re- appreciating the evidence
and reversing the finding on this point obviously \Vent beyond its jurisdic-
H tion. Even otherwise also the view taken by the High Court does not appear .(
FATIMA BEEv. MAI-!AMOODSIDDIQUI[NANAVATJ,J.J 863

to be correct. The landlady had purchased the suit premises at a court A
auction. There is no evidence to show that the tenants were present at the
time of auction. Even if they were present there was no reason for the
purchaser, that is, the landlady or her husband to give such an assurance
to the tenants at the time of purchasing the two properties at the court
auction. It also appears that the High Court overlooked the correct posi-
B
tion that according to Section 10(1) proviso and l0(2)(vi) of the Act, ma/a
fide claim of permanent tenancy is also a separate ground for eviction,
apart from denial of title to the landlord.

We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order
passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 757, 758, 759 and C
.760 of 1994 and restore the judgment and order passed by the Rent
Controller in R.C. Nos. 1776, 1777 of 1986 and 136, 142 of 1980 as
confirmed by the appellate court in R.A. Nos. 237 of 1989, 299 of 1992, 238
of 1989 and 302 of 1992. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
there shall be no order as to costs.
D,
R.P. Appeals allowed.