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.