- (1.) Civil Appeal No. 8466 of 1995 This appeal by the landlord has been referred to a three-Judge Bench for decision in order to resolve the apparent conflict between D. Devaji v. K. Sudarashana Rao, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 729, on the one hand and J. Pandu v. R. Narsubai, (1987) 1 SCC 573 : (AIR 1987 SC 857) and Dr. Saroj Kumar Das v. Arjun Prasad Jogani, (1987) 4 SCC 262 : (AIR 1987 SC 2131) on the other. The need to resolve the conflict arises because of the interpretation put to Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The provision reads as follows :- "Section 10. Eviction of Tenants : (1) and (2) . . . . . . . . . (3) (a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building - (i) and (ii) . . . . . . (iii) 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 - (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application; or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence : Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered : Provided further that, where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause he shall not be entitled to apply again under this Clause - (i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of another residential building of his own; (ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of another non-residential building of his own."
(2.) The landlord succeeded in the two Courts below on the ground that the non-residential building, which was said to be in his possession, was not sufficient and suitable to meet his requirements of opening a textile and cloth business since it was situated in a locality where the business of textile and cloth selling was not in vogue. The claim of the landlord was knocked down before the High Court on the basis of the decision in D. Devaji's case (1994 Supp (1) SCC 729) (supra) in which a two-member Bench of this Court has taken the view that when the landlord has a building in his possession the factors of suitability, convenience and sufficiency of accommodation in order to carry on the business are not relevant. Thus, the plea of the landlord that the non-residential building in his possession was not suitable to his business needs, was repelled on the factum that he owned a non-residential building, which was enough to non-suit him.
(3.) It has been pleaded on behalf of the unsuccessful landlord that in D. Devaji's case (supra) the interpretation put on the provision is too narrow and defeats the very purpose of the provision. It has also been contended that the same is in conflict with J. Pandu (AIR 1987 SC 857) and Dr. Saroj Kumar Das's case (AIR 1987 SC 2131) (supra).;