Tenant can’t refuse to vacate saying landlord has another house: Andhra Pradesh HC

VIJAYAWADA: There is no requirement for a house-owner to disclose the ownership or possession of any other premises of his own to claim eviction of the tenant from residential premises since the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960 permits the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant for occupation of any one of his family members though he occupied another residential premises of his own in the city, town or village.

The requirement of disclosing the occupation of non-residential premises is only in case where the landlord sought eviction of tenant from non-residential premises. In a civil revision petition filed before the Hyderabad High Court, the petitioner-tenant challenged the judgment of the city small causes court (appellate court) whereby it has set aside the order of the first additional rent controller court, ordering his eviction from the schedule property.

Earlier, the landlord had approached the rent controller against the tenant for his eviction from the schedule residential premises on the ground that the premises was required for occupation by his recently-married son to reside and set up a dispensary in a shop attached to the house. Besides, the landlord alleged that the tenant committed wilful default on payment of rent regularly.

The tenant, while denying wilful default on his part, contended that the premises, consisting of three rooms, was taken on a monthly rent of Rs 2,200 and Rs 10,000 was deposited as advance which was returnable at the time of vacating the premises. He claimed that there was no practice of issuing receipts acknowledging receipt of monthly rent by the landlord. In fact, the schedule premises was not required by the landlord since the latter’s son already established his practice at his residence in the city. When he obtained interim injunction order, the landlord deliberately refused to receive monthly rents, he alleged. The rent controller, while believing the contention of the tenant, dismissed the plea of the landlord. Aggrieved, the landlord moved the appellate court which ordered eviction of the tenant in occupation of the residential premises.

Then the tenant approached the High Court, contending that the landlord did not disclose the residential house which he owned in another area and also another ancestral property. Non-disclosure of owning and possessing other properties was suffice to dismiss the eviction petition. Besides, the requirement of schedule premises for occupation by the son of the landlord was not bona fide, the counsel for the tenant argued.

The counsel for the landlord pointed out that the judgments relied upon by the tenant’s counsel were related to non-residential premises. In fact, the tenant cannot direct the landlord to occupy a particular premises, he noted.

Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy held that failure to disclose occupation of own residential premises by the landlord is not a ground to deny eviction of the tenant. It is for the landlord to opt for any of the premises for his occupation or for occupation of his family members and the tenant cannot dictate terms. Therefore, the landlord opted for the schedule premises for his newlywed son’s residence to set up family, the judge said.

While confirming the finding of the appellate court and disagreeing with the finding recorded by the rent controller, the judge dismissed the revision petition and directed the tenant to vacate and deliver the house to the landlord.