The learned Rent Controller recorded the findings that the requirement of the appellant is number bona fide and that the eviction petition is number maintainable in that view of the matter, he dismissed the eviction petition.
The husband of the appellant died in the meanwhile.
The appellant then filed an appeal, R.C.A.No.11/1994, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Act.
While companyfirming the finding that the requirement of the appellant was bona fide, the High Court on the question of maintainability, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority holding that the eviction petition was number maintainable.
The appellant is the landlady and the respondents are tenants of premises bearing D.Nos.19/76 A and 19/76A 1 Innespeta, Rajahmundry hereinafter referred to as the demised building which companyprises of a residential and a number residential portion.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit but the Appellate and the High Court dismissed it on the ground that from the beginning of the tenancy, a substantial part of the premises was used by the respondent for his professional work with the companysent of the appellant.
Thereafter, the respondent purchased the house and filed a suit under Section 13 1 e of the Delhi Act for eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his own residence.
It raises a question of interest, namely, whether a petition by a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant under Section 10 3 a i b of the A.P. Act from the demised building, let out under a companyposite lease for residential as well as number residential purposes, is maintainable?
The respondents resisted the petition, briefly stated, on two grounds i the lease granted in their favour is a companyposite lease and as such the petition for their eviction is number maintainable and ii the requirement of the appellant is number bona fide.
The revision petition was thus allowed on 29.7.97.
On appeal, this Court held that the premises let for residential purposes were being used by the respondent with the companysent of the appellant for companymercial purposes also so it ceased to be premises let for a residential purpose alone and as such the appellant companyld number eject the respondent under Section 13 1 e of the Delhi Act.
It is against that order of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal.
By its order dated 27.11.1995, the Appellate Authority held that the requirement of the appellant was bona fide and the eviction petition was maintainable.
In S.Sanyal vs. Gian Chand 1968 1 SCR 536, the predecessor in title of the respondent let out the suit premises to the appellant tenant for her residence and for running a school.
She and her husband filed eviction petition, R.C.C.No.71 of 1981, on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, under Section 10 3 a i b of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 which is referred to in this judgment as the A.P.Act against the respondents the first respondent is the partnership firm and respondents 2 to 5 are its partners seeking their eviction from the demised building on the ground of bona fide requirement for the personal residence of their family.
The respondents carried the matter in Civil Revision Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No.134 of 1996 passed on July 29, 1997.
