- (1.) The sole point, for consideration in this revision by the tenant of the suit premises is whether clause (b) of Sec. 10 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is applicable to the case and whether the Life Insurance Corporation would come within the ambit of the expression "Public Institution" as mentioned in that clause.
(2.) In order to appreciate this question it is necessary to refer to certain relevant facts. The Life Insurance Corporation is the owner of the suit premises which contains two shops. It has a building in which it has its office. It filed an eviction petition under Sec. 10 with a prayer to have the tenant vacated from the suit premises because the Life Insurance Corporation wanted to expand its business. Both the lower authorities ordered eviction not under Sec. 10(3) (b) but under Sec. 10(3) (c) on the misunderstanding that these two shops are part of the building occupied by the Life Insurance Corporation.
(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioners contended, in the first instance, that when both the lower authorities have applied Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act, it was their duty to give a finding under the proviso as to whether the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it would out-weigh the advantage to the landlord and this is, according to the learned advocate, wanting in this case. I am of the opinion that under no circumstances would Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act apply to the case of this nature because to my mind Sec. 10 (3) (c) would apply only when a landlord is occupying a part of the building and wants the other part of the building as additional accommodation. The building occupied by the tenant should form part of the same premises which is occupied partly by the landlord. Then only Sec. 10 (3) (c) would apply in which case the proviso also would come into play.;