Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KONDETI SURYANARAYANA AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PINNINTHI SESHAGIRI RAO
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/1999
BENCH:
V.N.Khare, S.N.Phukan
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 bonafide 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^).
The appeal preferred by the tenar.’:- was dismissed
and was affirmed by the High Court.
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.
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 &
new
building on the site of the building sought to be
deliver, po-ssession of the building to the landlord before
a specified date".
" (2) No order for recovery of possession under this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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."
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
bo 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 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.
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.