AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 656 ::2000 AIR SCW 179 ::2000 SCFBRC 5 ::(2000) WLC(SC)CVL 110 ::2000 (2) SCC 1 ::(2000) 1 Scale 131 ::2000 (1) CurCC 151 ::2000 (2) Andh LD 1 ::2000 (1) Andh WR 104 ::(2000) 2 Mad LW 748 ::2000 (2) MadLJ104 ::2000 (1) RenCR 155 ::2000 (1) RentLR 252 ::2000 (1) RenCJ 211 ::2000 (1) LRI 170 ::2000 (1) Supreme 98 ::2000 (2) SRJ 162 ::(2000) 1 JT 127 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Andhra Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Saghir Ahmad, D. P. Wadhwa , JJ

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960) , S.10(3)(a)(iii)— Eviction - Fact that landlord was already in possession of a non-residential premises in very same town on leasehold basis - Does not prohibit him to seek eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement for personal occupation - Also, the fact that other members of family of landlord possessed non-residential premises - No ground to prohibit landlord from seeking eviction. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act provides when the landlord requires the building whether residential or non-residential for his own occupation he may apply for eviction of tenant in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential 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 otherwise. The expression "to the possession of which he is entitled" would not mean possession otherwise than as an owner or in that capacity or having a superior right or under any of the grounds under the Act. Provisions of S. 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Mysore Act are quite in pari materia with the provisions of S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, merely because the landlord is already having his business in a leased premises of which he is in possession, it cannot be said that he cannot se....