http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT. FATIMA BEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHMOOD SIDDIQUI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/07/1996

BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   706        1996 SCALE  (5)495

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CIVIL APPEAL NOS 9744-45 OF 1996           (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9373-74/95) Smt. Fatima Bee V. Mohd Omer Siddiqui                       J U D G M E N T NANVATI, 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 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 reserved the finding recorded by the courts below, set aside the  judgment and  order passed by the appellate Court and dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the respondent therein.      The appellant  is the  owner  cf  two  non  residential buildings bearing Nos. 21-2-372 and 21-2-373 situated in Lad Bazar,  Hyderabad.  Both  the  buildings  have  two  floors. Mahamood Siddiqui  is the  tenant of  both the floors of the building bearing No.21-2-373. Omer Siddiqui is the tenant of 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 members is engaged in the  business of  manufacturing and  selling bangles. The said family business is carried on in three rented premises. As the  landlords of the said premises were pressing them to vacate the same and as it was-inconvenient to carry on their business from  those three  different places  the  appellant first requested and then gave a notice to them to vacate the suit premises. As the tenants did not vacate she filed three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

separate aviction  Petitions being R.C. Nos.136, 142 and 135 of 1980  under Section 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (lease, Rent  and Eviction)  Control Act,  1960 (hereinafter referred to  as   the  Act)  in  the  Court  of  the  Second Additional  Rent  Controller,  Hyderabad  stating  that  she requires the  suit premises  bona fide  for carrying  on her business.  The   Rent  Controller   after  appreciating  the evidence on  record held  that the landlady does not own any other  non-residential premises and that she is not carrying on her  business in the residential premises occupied by her 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 bonafide and genuine.  He, therefore,  allowed the aviction 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 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 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 premisses bearing  No. 21  2-373 and  Omer  had  denied  his tenancy in  respect of  premises bearing  No. 21-2-372.  The Rent controller 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 Controller also held  that claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide and not bona  fide. Therefore,  The Rent  Controller allowed the eviction petitions  on  those  grounds  adn  left  open  the question whether  raising the  plea  of  agreement  to  sell amounted to  nuisance or  hot. The tenants feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller appealed to the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad.      All the appeal were heard together. The Appellate Court confirmed the   findings  regarding tenancy  and  bona  fide requirement of  the landlady’s  title and claim of permanent tenancy were  mala fide.  All the  appeal  were,  therefore, dismissed.      The  tenants   then  preferred  six  separate  revision applications in  the Andhra  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 tenants and had also defaulted in payment of rent the High Court  dismissed his  Revision Application Nos. 791 and 762 of  1994 and upheld the order of eviction passed against him. In the revision applications filed by Mahamood Siddiqui and Mohd. Omer the High Court held that the tenants had note 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 in her applications, it cannot be  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

title. As  regards the  claim of, permanent tenancy the High Court held  that there  was some  evidence in  this case  to support it  and, therefore,  it cannot be regarded as a mala fide claim. On the question of bona fide claim 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  10 (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 supported  by relevant evidence inasmuch  as in  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   proceedings".  Taking this  view the  High  Court allowed the revision applications filed them.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  contended that the High  Court committed not only an error of law  but went 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 along  with her  family members. 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  committed a grave error in reversing the finding that the  claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide. The Rent Controller after  appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the landlady  and that  of  the  tenants  had  recorded  the finding that  the landlady  requires the  suit premises bona fide for  carrying on  her 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.  These findings   were confirmed by the appellate court again after appreciating the  evidence. 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 business from the suit  premises. It  was not  even put to these witnesses 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 shown how much area she requires for carrying on her business.      As regards  the claim  of the  tenants that they have a right of  permanent tenancy  what they  have stated in their evidence is  that  when  the  landlady  purchased  the  suit premises she and her husband had assured them that they will not 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  appreciating  the  rival evidence thought  it fit  to a  believe the  evidence led on behalf of  the landlady. The finding recorded in this behalf was  again   a  finding  of  fact  The  High  Court  in  re- appreciating the  evidence and reversing the finding on this point obviously went beyond its jurisdiction. Even otherwise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

also the  view by  the High  Court does  not  appear  to  be correct. The  landlady had  purchased the suit premises at a court   auction, There  is no  evidence  to  show  that  the tenants were  present at the time of a 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 position  that according  to Section 10(1) provision and 10(2)(vi) of the Act, mala fide claim of permanent tenancy is also a separate in 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 760  of 1994 and restore  the   judgement  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.