{"id":138357,"date":"1999-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999"},"modified":"2016-04-11T21:39:59","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T16:09:59","slug":"boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n
Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBODDU NARAYANAMMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRI VENKATARAMA ALUMINIUM CO. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nV.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J.\n<\/p>\n
      This  appeal,  by special leave, is from the  judgment
\nand  order  of\tthe High Court of Andhra  Pradesh  in  Civil
\nRevision  Petition  No.134 of 1996 passed on July 29,  1997.
\nIt raises a question of interest, namely, whether a petition
\nby  a  landlord seeking eviction of a tenant  under  Section
\n10(3)(a)(i)(b)\tof the A.P.  Act from the demised  building,
\nlet  out under a composite lease for residential as well  as
\nnon-residential purposes, is maintainable?\n<\/p>\n
      The  appellant is the landlady and the respondents are
\ntenants\t of  premises  bearing D.Nos.19\/76-A  and  19\/76A-1;
\nInnespeta,  Rajahmundry\t (hereinafter  referred to  as\t“the
\ndemised\t building”)  which comprises of a residential and  a
\nnon-residential portion.  She and her husband filed eviction
\npetition,  R.C.C.No.71 of 1981, on the file of the Principal
\nDistrict  Munsif-cum-Rent  Controller,\t Rajahmundry,  under
\nSection\t 10(3)(a)(i)(b)\t of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Buildings
\n(Lease,\t Rent  and  Eviction) Control Act,  1960  (which  is
\nreferred  to in this judgment as ‘the A.P.Act’) against\t the
\nrespondents  (the  first respondent is the partnership\tfirm
\nand  respondents  2  to 5 are its  partners)  seeking  their
\neviction  from\tthe demised building on the ground  of\tbona
\nfide requirement for the personal residence of their family.
\nThe  respondents  resisted the petition, briefly stated,  on
\ntwo  grounds  :\t (i) the lease granted in their favour is  a
\ncomposite  lease and as such the petition for their eviction
\nis  not\t maintainable  and  (ii)   the\trequirement  of\t the
\nappellant is not bona fide.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Rent Controller recorded the findings that
\nthe  requirement of the appellant is not bona fide and\tthat
\nthe  eviction petition is not maintainable;  in that view of
\nthe matter, he dismissed the eviction petition.\t The husband
\nof  the appellant died in the meanwhile.  The appellant then
\nfiled  an  appeal,  R.C.A.No.11\/1994,\tbefore\tthe  learned
\nSubordinate  Judge,  Rajahmundry,  the\tAppellate  Authority
\nunder  the  A.P.  Act.\tBy its order dated  27.11.1995,\t the
\nAppellate  Authority  held  that   the\trequirement  of\t the
\nappellant  was\tbona  fide  and the  eviction  petition\t was
\nmaintainable.\tAccordingly,  the  Appellate  Authority\t set
\naside  the  order  of the Rent Controller  and\tallowed\t the
\nappeal.\t  The  respondents  carried   the  matter  in  Civil
\nRevision  Petition before the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh.
\nWhile  confirming  the finding that the requirement  of\t the
\nappellant  was bona fide, the High Court on the question  of
\nmaintainability,  set  aside  the  order  of  the  Appellate
\nAuthority  holding  that  the\teviction  petition  was\t not
\nmaintainable.\tThe  revision petition was thus\t allowed  on
\n29.7.97.   It  is against that order of the High Court,\t the
\nappellant is in appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.Sudhir\t Chandra,  learned  senior counsel  for\t the
\nappellant,  urged  that\t the  building\tas  a  whole  is   a
\nresidential one and the purpose for which a portion of it is
\nused  cannot really change its nature;\ttherefore, the\tHigh
\nCourt  erred in holding that in respect of a composite lease
\nfor  residential and non-residential purposes, the  eviction
\npetition  filed for personal occupation of the appellant was
\nnot  maintainable.  On the ground that there is no provision
\nin the A.P.  Act entitling the appellant to seek eviction in
\ncase  of a composite lease, submits the learned counsel, the
\nappellant  cannot  be rendered remediless and the  statutory
\nlease cannot be converted into a lease in perpetuity.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.M.S.Ganesh,   learned\t senior\t  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents,  on  the  other hand, has\tsubmitted  that\t the
\nbuilding  comprises  of\t two  separate\tportions  –  one  is
\nresidential  and  the other non-residential – and  there  is
\ndichotomy  in  the Act for purposes of eviction\t of  tenants
\ninasmuch  as  with regard to eviction from  residential\t and
\nnon-residential\t premises  separate  grounds  are  provided;
\nthat  on  the  ground of bona fide personal  requirement  of
\nresidence of the appellant, eviction of non-residential part
\nof  the building cannot be sought for and as the lease is  a
\ncomposite one, no eviction can be ordered even in respect of
\nresidential  part  of  the  building;  the  High  Court\t is,
\ntherefore,  right  in holding that the eviction petition  is
\nnot maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      To  appreciate  the rival contentions of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel,  it  would  be\t necessary to  notice  the  relevant
\nprovisions of the A.P.\tAct.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  2(iii) defines the term ‘building’ as follows
\n:\n<\/p>\n
      “2(iii).\t“Building” means any house or hut or part of
\na  house or hut, let or to be let separately for residential
\nor non-residential purposes and includes :-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  the\tgardens, grounds, garages and out-houses  if
\nany, appurtenant to such house, hut or part of such house or
\nhut  and  let or to be let along with such house or  hut  or
\npart of such house or hut;\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  any furniture supplied or any fittings affixed by
\nthe landlord for use in such house or hut or part of a house
\nor  hut, but does not include a room in a hotel or  boarding
\nhouse.”\n<\/p>\n
      Sections\t10,  12\t and  13 of the\t A.P.\tAct  provide
\ngrounds\t for eviction of tenants.  We shall presently  refer
\nto  Section  10(3)(a)  with which we are  concerned  in\t the
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t perusal  of the definition of the  term  ‘building’
\nshows  that (a) any house or hut, or (b) part of a house  or
\nhut,  let  or  to  be  let  separately\tfor  residential  or
\nnon-residential\t purposes, is a building for purposes of the
\nAct;   it  takes  in  the   gardens,  grounds,\tgarages\t and
\nout-houses,  if any, appurtenant to such house, hut or\tpart
\nof  such house or hut and also any furniture supplied or any
\nfittings  affixed  by the landlord for use in such house  or
\nhut or part thereof.  However, a room in a hotel or boarding
\nhouse is excluded from the meaning of the term ‘building’.\n<\/p>\n
      But, if a house\/hut is having both residential as well
\nas  non-  residential  portions which are let  out  together
\nunder  a  composite lease, will it be within the meaning  of
\nthe  term  ‘building’?\tAnd will it be covered by  the\tA.P.
\nAct?   In  the definition of the term “building” in  Section
\n2(iii)\tof  the Act, the words “let or to be let  separately
\nfor  residential or non-residential purposes”, indicate that
\nwhere  any house or hut or parts thereof are let  separately
\nfor residential or non- residential purposes, each part will
\nbe  a building within the meaning of that term.\t It does not
\nand  cannot  mean  that\t when a residential  portion  and  a
\nnon-residential\t portion  of  a\t building are  let  under  a
\ncomposite  lease,  the\twhole building as such will  not  be
\nwithin\tthe  meaning of the term ‘building’ for\t the  simple
\nreason that a house whether it is wholly residential, wholly
\nnon-residential\t  or   partly\t  residential\tand   partly
\nnon-residential is by definition a ‘building’.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  1(2)(a)(b)  of  the A.P.\t Act  says  that  it
\napplies\t  to   the  cities   of\t  Hyderabad,   Secunderabad,
\nVisakhapatnam,\tVijayawada and to all Municipal Corporations
\nand  municipalities  in\t the  State of\tAndhra\tPradesh\t and
\nSection\t 32  says that the A.P.\t Act shall not apply to\t any
\nbuilding  owned by the Government.  Under Section 26 of that
\nAct,  the  Governor  of Andhra Pradesh\thas  exempted,\twith
\neffect\tfrom  October  26, 1983, – (1) all buildings  for  a
\nperiod\t of  ten  years\t from\tthe  date  on  which   their
\nconstruction is completed and (2) buildings the monthly rent
\nof  which  exceeds Rs.1,000\/-.\tThe building in question  is
\nwithin\tthe  limits of Municipality of Rajahmundry, thus  it
\nsatisfies  the requirement of Section 1(2)(a)(b) and neither
\nSection\t 32 excludes it from the purview of the Act nor does
\nit fall under any of the exemptions granted under Section 26
\nof  the\t A.P.\tAct.  Now, it cannot be that a\tbuilding  is
\nwithin\tthe purview of the A.P.\t Act if let out\t exclusively
\nfor  residential purpose or exclusively for  non-residential
\npurpose\t or  let  out separately in  parts  for\t residential
\npurpose\t and non-residential purpose but outside its purview
\nif  let out under a composite lease for residential and non-
\nresidential  purposes.\t To hold so would be to\t defeat\t the
\nobject\tof  the\t A.P.\tAct.  It follows  that\tthe  demised
\nbuilding is within the meaning of the term “building” and is
\nwithin the ambit of the A.P.  Act.\n<\/p>\n
      With  regard  to\tthe question of\t maintainability  of
\neviction  petition  under  Section 10(3)(a)(i) of  the\tA.P.
\nAct,  there is no controversy that when a building having  a
\nresidential  and non- residential portions is let separately
\nto  a person, a petition for eviction of the tenant from the
\nresidential  or non-residential portion or both on the\tplea
\nof  personal  requirement  of  residence or  business  of  a
\nlandlord, as the case may be, is maintainable but there is a
\nconflict  of  opinion  among various High Courts as  to\t the
\nmaintainability\t of a suit\/petition for eviction filed by  a
\nlandlord,  on  the  ground of his  personal  requirement  of
\nresidence,   against   a  tenant   who\tis  occupying\tboth
\nresidential and non-residential portions of a building under
\na composite lease.\n<\/p>\n
      Now,  we shall refer to the views expressed by various
\nHigh  Courts  on  the  question\t  of  maintainability  of  a
\nsuit\/petition  filed  on  the ground of bona  fide  personal
\nrequirement  of residence of the landlord for eviction of  a
\ntenant holding residential and non-residential portions of a
\nbuilding under a composite lease.\n<\/p>\n
      The  High\t Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ghan  Shyam\t vs.
\nLaxmi  Narayana\t [1990\t(1)  ALT 43];\tthe  High  Court  of
\nRajasthan  in Om Prakash vs.  Smt.Chand Devi<\/a> [1973 RCR 562];
\nthe  High  Court  of  Madras in\t Moinuddin  Khan  Sahib\t vs.
\nRukmani\t Ammal\t[1973  All  India RCJ  311]  and  Tikamchand
\nMithalal  Jain vs.  M.R.Narasimhachari [AIR 1981 Madras 21];
\nthe  High  Court  of  Madhya Pradesh  in  Jamna\t Prasad\t vs.
\nNandkishore  [1976  MPLJ 28], Panjumal Daulatram  (Firm)  vs
\nSakhi Gopal Thakurdin Agrawal<\/a> [1977 MPLJ 762] and Jagitkumar
\nvs.  Jagdeeshchandra [AIR 1982 MP 144] took the views that a
\nsuit\/petition, under the respective Act, for eviction of the
\ntenant\t  from\t a    premises\t  having   residential\t and
\nnon-residential\t accommodation held under a composite lease,
\non  the\t ground of personal requirement of residence of\t the
\nlandlord,  is maintainable.  The reasoning is that there are
\ntwo   kinds   of  accommodation\t   viz.,   residential\t and
\nnon-residential so if an accommodation is primarily used for
\nresidential  purposes it has to be classified as residential
\nalthough  a part of it is used for non-residential  purposes
\nand  vice  versa.   There is also emphasis on  the  dominant
\npurpose\t of the lease.\tHowever, the contrary view is  taken
\nin  Dr.Madhusudan Mahuli vs.  Lambu Indira Bai [1987 (2) ALT
\n504]  by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in  Gokulchand
\nvs.   Krishnachandra & Anr.  [1977 All India RCJ 376] by the
\nHigh  Court  of Madhya Pradesh on the ground of\t absence  of
\nspecific  provision  in the A.P.  Act and the M.P.  Act\t for
\neviction of the tenant holding a building having residential
\nand non-residential portions under a composite lease.\n<\/p>\n
      Apropos  the  discussion, the following  decisions  of
\nthis Court are apposite :\n<\/p>\n
      In  Dr.  Gopal Dass Verma Vs.  Dr.  S.K.\tBhardwaj and
\nAnr.  [1962 (2) SCR 678], the appellant was the landlord and
\nthe respondent was the tenant of the premises which were let
\nfor  use  as  the  residence  of the  tenant  but  from\t the
\ninception  of the tenancy, the premises were being used\t for
\ncommercial  purposes also i.e.\tfor his professional work as
\nE.N.T.\t Specialist.  The appellant sued the respondent\t for
\nejectment,  inter alia, under Section 13(1)(e) of the  Delhi
\nand Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Delhi Act’)
\nfor  his personal requirement of residence.  The trial court
\ndecreed\t the  suit  but\t the Appellate and  the\t High  Court
\ndismissed  it  on the ground that from the beginning of\t the
\ntenancy,  a substantial part of the premises was used by the
\nrespondent for his professional work with the consent of the
\nappellant.  On appeal, this Court held that the premises let
\nfor  residential purposes were being used by the  respondent
\nwith  the  consent of the appellant for commercial  purposes
\nalso  so  it  ceased to be premises let\t for  a\t residential
\npurpose\t alone and as such the appellant could not eject the
\nrespondent under Section 13(1)(e) of the Delhi Act.\n<\/p>\n
      In  S.Sanyal  vs.\t Gian Chand [1968 (1) SCR 536],\t the
\npredecessor  in\t title\tof the respondent let out  the\tsuit
\npremises  to the appellant- tenant for her residence and for
\nrunning\t a school.  Thereafter, the respondent purchased the
\nhouse  and filed a suit under Section 13(1)(e) of the  Delhi
\nAct  for  eviction  of the appellant on the ground  that  he
\nrequired  the premises bona fide for his own residence.\t The
\ntrial court dismissed the suit.\t On revision, the High Court
\nheld  that a decree for ejectment limited to that portion of
\nthe  house  which was used for residential purposes  by\t the
\ntenant\t could\tbe  granted  and   remanded  the  case\t for
\ndemarcating that portion and passing a decree.\tOn appeal to
\nthis  Court against the order of the High Court, it was held
\nthat  the  contract of tenancy was a single and\t indivisible
\ncontract  and  in the absence of any statutory provision  to
\nthat  effect, it was not open to the Court to divide it into
\ntwo  contracts – one of letting out for residential purposes
\nand  the  other\t for non-residential purposes  for  granting
\nrelief under Section 13(1)(e) of the Delhi Act in respect of
\nthe  portion  used  for\t  residential  purposes.   Following
\nDr.Gopal  Dass Verma’s case (supra), it was observed that if
\nin  respect  of\t premises  originally  let  for\t residential
\npurposes,  a decree for ejectment could not be passed on the
\ngrounds\t mentioned in Section 13(1)(e), if subsequent to the
\nletting,  with the consent of the landlord, the premises was
\nused  both for residential and non-residential purposes, the
\nbar  against  the  jurisdiction of the Court would  be\tmore
\neffective  when\t the  original letting was  for\t purposes  –
\nnon-residential\t as well as residential.  It may be recalled
\nthat  the  condition  for invoking Section 13(1)(e)  of\t the
\nDelhi  Act  is that the premises be held by the\t tenant\t for
\nresidential purposes.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Motilal & Anr.  vs.  Nanak Chand & Ors.  [1970 All
\nIndia  RCJ 99], the suit-house was let out to the tenant for
\nresidence and for running a school.  The landlord’s suit for
\nejectment against the tenant filed under Section 13(1)(e) of
\nthe  Delhi  Act\t was  dismissed by the trial  court  on\t the
\npreliminary  issue  of maintainability of the suit  but\t the
\nDistrict  Judge reversed the decree and remanded the case to
\nthe  trial  court.  The revision against that  order  having
\nbeen dismissed by the High Court, an appeal by special leave
\nwas  filed  in\tthis  Court.  Relying  on  the\tjudgment  in
\nS.Sanyal’s  case (supra), it was held that as the owner\t let
\nout the premises to the tenant for residence and for running
\na  school, the suit for ejectment on the ground of bona fide
\npersonal  requirement  was not maintainable and it  was\t not
\nopen  to  the  Court  to demarcate  the\t portions  used\t for
\nresidential  and non-residential purposes as the contract of
\ntenancy\t was  single  and indivisible contract\tand  in\t the
\nabsence\t of  a statutory provision, it was not open  to\t the
\nCourt  to divide it into two contracts and grant eviction of
\nthe portion which was used for residential purposes.\n<\/p>\n
      For  appreciating the above noted decisions, it may be
\npointed\t out here that though the A.P.\tAct, the Tamil\tNadu
\nAct,  the M.P.\tAct, the Rajasthan Act and the Delhi Act are
\nin  pari materia, yet provisions of these Acts dealing\twith
\ngrounds\t of eviction of a tenant for personal requirement of
\nresidence of a landlord are not in haec verba.\n<\/p>\n
      Since  the three cases decided by this Court, referred
\nto  above, arose under Section 13(1)(e) of the Delhi Act, it
\nwill be useful to quote that provision here :\n<\/p>\n
      “13(1)(e).  Protection of a tenant against eviction –\n<\/p>\n
      (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
\nin  any other law or any control, no decree or order for the
\nrecovery  of  possession of any premises shall be passed  by
\nany  court  in\tfavour of the landlord\tagainst\t any  tenant
\n(including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated):\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat nothing in this sub-section shall apply
\nto  any\t suit  or  other proceeding  for  such\trecovery  of
\npossession if the court is satisfied –\n<\/p>\n
      (e)  that the premises let for a residential  purposes
\nare  required bona fide by the landlord who is owner of such
\npremises  for  occupation as a residence for himself or\t his
\nfamily and that he has no other suitable accommodation:\n<\/p>\n
      Explanation  –  For  the\t purposes  of  this  clause,
\n“residential  premises” include any premises which have been
\nlet  for use as a residence are, without the consent of\t the
\nlandlord,   used  incidentally\tfor   commercial  or   other
\npurposes;\n<\/p>\n
      A\t perusal  of  this provision reveals  that  the\t ban
\nimposed\t by  Section 13(1), that no decree or order for\t the
\nrecovery  of  possession  of any premises in favour  of\t the
\nlandlord  against  any tenant shall be passed, is lifted  in
\ncase  of  an  owner-landlord  of a premises  who  bona\tfide
\nrequires it for occupation as a residence for himself or his
\nfamily, provided that the premises was let for a residential
\npurpose\t  and\tthe   landlord\t has   no   other   suitable
\naccommodation.\t The explanation makes it clear that if\t the
\npremises let for residential purposes is used for commercial
\npurposes  without  the\tconsent\t of  the  landlord  it\twill
\ncontinue  to be a residential premises.\t In other words,  if
\nthe  premises let for residential purposes is actually\tused
\nfor  commercial\t purposes  but without the  consent  of\t the
\nlandlord,  the landlord can seek the eviction of the  tenant
\nunder  Section 13(1)(e) as the character of the premises  is
\nstatutorily  retained as a residential premises.  This is so
\nbecause\t the Delhi Act does not provide for eviction of\t the
\ntenant\tfrom the premises other than residential premises on
\nthe  ground  of\t bona  fide  requirement  of  the  landlord,
\n(S.Sanyal’s case)(supra).\n<\/p>\n
      It  may be noticed here that the provisions of Section
\n10(3)(a)  of the A.P.  Act and Section 13(1)(e) of the Delhi
\nAct  are not in haec verba;  whereas the former provides for
\neviction   of\ta   tenant   both   from   residential\t and
\nnon-residential\t  premises  on\tthe   ground  of  bona\tfide
\nrequirement  of\t the  landlord,\t  the  latter  provides\t for
\neviction  of  a\t tenant on that ground\tfrom  a\t residential
\npremises  only and not from a non-residential premises.\t For
\nthis  reason,  the  judgments in  the  aforementioned  cases
\ndecided\t under\tSection 13(1)(e) of the Delhi Act cannot  be
\napplied\t to cases arising under Section 10(3)(a) of the A.P.
\nAct  or Section 10(3)(a) of the T.N.  Act which are in\thaec
\nverba.\t  Section  12(e)  and  (f)  of\tthe  M.P.   Act\t  is
\nsubstantially  similar\tto the said provisions of  the\tA.P.
\nAct  and the T.N.  Act but Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan
\nAct  is\t wider than the provisions of the A.P.\tAct and\t the
\nT.N.  Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.Sudhir Chandra has further urged that a residential
\naccommodation  is  one which is suitable for residence\teven
\nwith necessary changes and as the tin shade (non-residential
\nportion)  is not being used for more than a year pursuant to
\nthe orders of the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Pollution
\nControl\t  Board\t under\tAir   (Prevention  and\tControl\t  of
\nPollution)  Act,  1981 and other authorities  directing\t the
\nrespondents  not  to carry on any manufacturing activity  in
\nthe   residential  area\t and  to   shift  the  same  to\t any
\nnon-residential\t area, so the non-residential portion can be
\nput  to\t residential use with necessary changes and  indeed,
\nfor  that  purpose  alone,  the eviction of  the  tenant  is
\nsought;\t  therefore, the demised building has to be  treated
\nas  residential\t and  if so, eviction can  be  ordered.\t  In
\nsupport\t of his submission, he relied on the observations of
\nthis   Court  in  Busching   Schmitz  Private  Limited\t vs.
\nP.T.Menghani  & Anr.<\/a>  [1977 (2) SCC 835].  In that case, the
\nlandlord  was  the  Government\tservant.   He  let  out\t the
\nbuilding  for  purposes of residence and for business  in  a
\nportion\t thereof.   He sought eviction of the  tenant  under
\nSection\t 14A(1)\t of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59  of
\n1958).\t That  application was opposed by the tenant on\t the
\nground\tthat what was let out to him was not for residential
\npurpose\t but  for residential-cum-commercial purposes.\t The
\ntenant\twas, however, refused leave to contest the  petition
\nunder  Section\t25B(4) of the said Act.\t He challenged\tthat
\norder  in a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi but
\nit  was\t dismissed.  On appeal to this Court,  the  question
\nwhich arose for consideration was whether the building which
\nwas  let  out  for the\tresidential-cum-commercial  purposes
\nremained  a residential building?  It was held that whatever
\nwas  suitable  or  adaptable for residential  use,  even  by
\nmaking\tsome  changes, could be designated  as\t‘residential
\npremises’.   Speaking for the Court Krishna Iyer,J., in\t his
\ninimitable style, observed :\n<\/p>\n
      “Residential premises are not only these which are let
\nout for residential purposes as the appellant would have it.
\nNor  do they cover all kinds of structures where humans\t may
\nmanage\tto dwell.  If a beautiful bungalow were let out to a
\nbusinessman  to run a show-room or to a meditation group  or
\nmusic  society for meditational or musical uses, it  remains
\nnone-  the-less\t a  residential\t accommodation.\t  Otherwise,
\npremises  may one day be residential another day  commercial
\nand,  on yet a later day, religious.  Use or purpose of\t the
\nletting is no conclusive test.\tLikewise, the fact that many
\npoor  persons may sleep under bridges or live in large\thume
\npipes  or  crawl into verandahs of shops and  bazars  cannot
\nmake  them residential premises.  That is a case of reductio
\nad absurdum.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned counsel for the appellant has also placed
\nreliance  on  the  following observations of this  Court  in
\nM\/s.Maulavi  Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed & Co.  vs.\tJay  Krishna
\nArora<\/a> [1976 (1) SCC 295] :\n<\/p>\n
      “The  law does not require that the landlord must need
\nthe  premises for his own occupation only for the purpose to
\nwhich  they  were being put by the tenant.  It may  well  be
\nthat  a tenant cannot put the demised premises to any  other
\nuse.   But there is no bar in law in the way of the landlord
\nrequiring   the\t business  premises   for  his\t residential
\noccupation and vice versa, provided the premises are capable
\nof  being put to different uses, as they seem to be in\tthis
\ncase.”\n<\/p>\n
      and contended that merely because the tenant was using
\nthe  portion  of the building for non-residential  purposes,
\nthere was no bar in law for the landlord to use the same for
\nresidential purposes.  That case arose under the West Bengal
\nPremises Tenancy Act, 1956 (12 of 1956).\n<\/p>\n
      It  is true that under the A.P.Act, there is no bar to
\nconvert\t a  non-residential building into a residential\t one
\nthough\tSection\t 18  mandates that no  residential  building
\nshall  be converted into a non- residential building  except
\nwith the permission in writing of the Controller.\n<\/p>\n
      We  shall\t now advert to Section 10(3)(a) of the\tA.P.
\nAct  under which the instant case arises and it will be\t apt
\nto quote it here :\n<\/p>\n
      “10(3)(a).   A landlord may subject to the  provisions
\nof  clause  (d),  apply\t to  the  Controller  for  an  order
\ndirecting  the\ttenant to put the landlord in possession  of
\nthe building – –\n<\/p>\n
      (i) in case it is a residential building —\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  if  the landlord is not occupying  a\t residential
\nbuilding  of his own in the city, town or village  concerned
\nand he requires it for his own occupation;\n<\/p>\n
      (b) if the landlord who has more buildings than one in
\nthe  city, town or village concerned is in occupation of one
\nsuch  building\tand he bona fide requires  another  building
\ninstead, for his own occupation;\n<\/p>\n
      (ii) in case it is a non-residential building which is
\nused  for  the purpose of keeping a vehicle or\tadapted\t for
\nsuch use, if the landlord requires it for his own use and if
\nhe  is not occupying any such building in the city, town  or
\nvillage\t concerned which is his own or to the possession  of
\nwhich he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise;\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)   in  case\tit  is\tany  other   non-residential
\nbuilding, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential
\nbuilding in the city, town or village concerned which is his
\nown  or\t to the possession of which he is  entitled  whether
\nunder this Act or otherwise –\n<\/p>\n
      (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying
\non, on the date of the application;  or<\/p>\n
      (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion
\nof  the\t Controller  the  landlord  bona  fide\tproposes  to
\ncommence :\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat  a person who becomes a landlord  after
\nthe commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos
\nshall  not be entitled to apply under this clause before the
\nexpiry of three months from the date on which the instrument
\nwas registered :\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tfurther that, where a landlord has  obtained
\npossession  of a building under this clause he shall not  be
\nentitled to apply again under this Clause –\n<\/p>\n
      (i)   in\tcase  he  has\tobtained  possession  of   a
\nresidential  building, for possession of another residential
\nbuilding of his own;\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)  in\tcase  he  has\tobtained  possession  of   a
\nnon-residential\t building,  for possession of  another\tnon-
\nresidential building of his own.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  provisions, extracted above, specify the  grounds
\nfor eviction of a tenant from a residential building as well
\nas  from  a  non- residential building.\t Sub-clause  (i)  of
\nclause\t(a)  of\t sub-section (3) of Section  10\t deals\twith
\neviction of a tenant from a ‘residential building’.  It says
\nthat  a\t landlord  may apply to the Rent Controller  for  an
\norder directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession
\nof a residential building on any of the two grounds, namely,\n<\/p>\n
(a)  if the landlord is not occupying a residential building
\nof  his\t own in the city, town or village concerned  and  he
\nrequires it for his own occupation;  and (b) if the landlord
\nwho has more buildings than one in the city, town or village
\nconcerned  is in occupation of one such building and he bona
\nfide   requires\t another  building   instead,  for  his\t own
\noccupation.  Sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with the eviction
\nof  a  tenant from a non-residential building which is\tused
\nfor  the  purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted  for\tsuch
\nuse, if the landlord requires it for his own use provided he
\nis  not\t occupying  any such building in the city,  town  or
\nvillage\t concerned which is his own or to the possession  of
\nwhich  he  is entitled whether under this Act or  otherwise.
\nSub-clause  (iii) thereof furnishes the ground for  eviction
\nof  a tenant from a non-residential building other than that
\nfalling\t under\tsub-clause  (ii);  if the  landlord  is\t not
\noccupying  a  non-residential building in the city, town  or
\nvillage\t concerned which is his own or to the possession  of
\nwhich  he  is  entitled under the Act or  otherwise  and  he
\nrequires  it (a) for the purposes of a business which he  is
\ncarrying on, on the date of the application;  or (b) for the
\npurpose\t of  a\tbusiness  which,  in  the  opinion  of\t the
\nController,  the landlord bona fide proposes to commence, he
\nmay  seek  eviction  of the tenant.   These  provisions\t are
\nsubject\t to  two restrictions:\t(i) a person who  becomes  a
\nlandlord by an instrument inter vivos after the commencement
\nof  the\t tenancy cannot apply under that clause\t before\t the
\nexpiry\tof three months from the date of registration of the
\ninstrument;   and  (ii)\t where\tthe  landlord  has  obtained
\npossession  of a residential building under that clause,  he
\nwill  not be entitled to apply again under it whether he has
\nobtained  possession of a residential or a non-\t residential
\nbuilding of his own.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is not necessary to refer to the other  provisions
\nof Section 10 for purposes of the present discussion.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t combined  reading  of Section\t2(iii)\tand  Section
\n10(3)(a)  of the A.P.  Act indicates that when a residential
\nbuilding  or a non-residential building or parts thereof are
\nlet  separately\t for  residential  and\/or  non-\t residential
\npurposes,  the provisions of Section 10(3)(a), namely,\tsub-
\nclause (i) in case of a residential building and sub-clauses\n<\/p>\n
(ii) and (iii) in case of a non-residential building, can be
\ninvoked\t and  on the requirements thereof being satisfied  a
\nlandlord  can seek eviction of a tenant therefrom.  However,
\nthere  is  no separate provision under which eviction  of  a
\ntenant\t can  be  sought  from\t a  building,  having\tboth
\nresidential  and  non-residential  portions,  held  under  a
\ncomposite  lease.  For this reason, the High Court held that
\nas  the\t demised  building was let out for  residential\t and
\nnon-residential\t purposes  under  a composite lease  to\t the
\nrespondent,  the  eviction petition of the appellant on\t the
\nground\tof  her\t personal requirement of residence  was\t not
\nmaintainable.\tIn  the result, the appellant is  placed  in
\nsuch  a position that she cannot seek recovery of possession
\nof  the\t demised  building,  not  even\tof  the\t residential
\nportion,  from\tthe  respondent\t by  approaching  the\tRent
\nController.   She  cannot  also\t seek  decree  for  eviction
\nagainst\t the  respondent on the aforementioned\tground\tfrom
\nCivil  Court because the building is found to be within\t the
\npurview\t of  the  A.P.\t Act.  In such a  situation  is\t she
\nwithout\t any  remedy?  The riposte, in our view, is  in\t the
\nnegative.\n<\/p>\n
      There  is nothing in the A.P.  Act to suggest that the
\nright of a landlord like the appellant to recover possession
\nof  the demised building from the tenant-respondent is taken
\naway  either expressly or by necessary implication.  Once it
\nis  held  that\ta  building   having  both  residential\t and
\nnon-residential\t portions which are let out together under a
\ncomposite  lease  is a building within the meaning  of\tthat
\nterm and within the ambit of the Act, such a building has to
\nfall  within one or the other category, namely,\t residential
\nor  non-residential  – the classification which is  made  in
\nSection\t 2(iii)\t of the A.P.  Act.  We find it difficult  to
\ninfer  that  the legislature having brought such a  building
\nwithin the ambit of the Act and having provided for eviction
\nof  a  tenant on the ground of personal requirement  of\t the
\nlandlord  from\tsuch  a\t building when it  is  let  out\t for
\nresidential  purposes  or for non- residential\tpurposes  or
\nseparately  for residential and\/or non- residential purposes
\nand having not taken away the right of the landlord to eject
\nthe  tenant  from  such\t a building left him  in  the  lurch
\nwithout\t providing the remedy of eviction of tenant when let
\nout  under  a  composite  lease.   We  cannot  construe\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  A.P.   Act\t in  that  way.\t  We   have,
\ntherefore,  to discern the remedy under the A.P.  Act on the
\nprinciple  embodied in the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.\t The
\nbuildings  under that Act are classified as (i)\t residential
\nand  (ii) non- residential.  In our view, a building  having
\nresidential  and non- residential portions and let out under
\na  composite  lease  has  to  be  categorised  as  either  a
\nresidential  or a non-residential building having regard  to
\nits  nature,  accommodation,  dominant\t purpose  of  lease,
\nprimary use of the building and other relevant circumstances
\non  the\t facts\tof each case.  On  such\t determination,\t the
\nsuit\/petition  of  the\tlandlord  has to  be  decided  under
\nsub-clause (i) or sub-clauses (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) of
\nSection 10(3) of the A.P Act, as the case may be.  It may be
\nnoticed\t here that under Section 10(3)(a) of the A.P.\tAct,
\nthe  relief  is granted with reference to the nature of\t the
\nbuilding  and not with reference to the purpose for which it
\nis let.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the instant case, it is admitted that the building
\ncomprises  of  two parts – (a) country tiled house used\t for
\nresidential purposes and (b) a L-shape tin shade appurtenant
\nthereto which is lesser in area than the residential portion
\nand was being used for manufacturing aluminium vessels.\t The
\ndominant  purpose  of  the  lease  is  residential  purpose,
\nnon-residential\t  activity  being   incidental.\t  Now,\tsome
\nmaterial  is  sought to be placed on record to show that  no
\nmanufacturing  activity is being carried on in that  portion
\npursuant   to\tthe   orders  of   the\t Member\t  Secretary,
\nA.P.Pollution  Control\tBoard.\tIt is not disputed that\t the
\ndemised\t  building   is\t in   residential  area\t  where\t  no
\nnon-residential\t activity  is  permitted to be\tcarried\t on.
\nWhile  respectfully agreeing with the test laid down by this
\nCourt  in Busching Schmitz case (supra), we are of the\tview
\nthat  the  portion  of\tthe demised  building  let  out\t for
\nnon-residential\t purposes can also be adapted with a  little
\nmodification  for residential purposes and indeed the  claim
\nof  the\t landlord  is to convert the  same  for\t residential
\npurposes  of  the family.  For all these reasons, we are  of
\nthe  considered\t view  that the demised building has  to  be
\ntreated as a residential building.  If so, the provisions of
\nSection\t 10(3)(a)(i)(b)\t of the A.P.  Act will be  attracted
\nand  the  eviction petition filed by the appellant  will  be
\nmaintainable.  The impugned order of the High Court, insofar
\nas it holds that the petition of the appellant under Section
\n10(3)(a)(i)(b) is not maintainable, is accordingly set aside
\nand  the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.11.95  is
\nrestored.  We approve the ratio in the judgments of the High
\nCourts\twhich  are  in\taccord\t with  the  view   expressed
\nhereinabove by us and overrule the ratio of the judgments of
\nthe  High Courts which have held to the contra.\t Inasmuch as
\nthe  Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have held
\nthat  the requirement for residence of the appellant is bona
\nfide  and as we have held that the petition of the appellant
\nfiled  under  Section  10(3)(a)(i)(b) is  maintainable,\t the
\nappellant  is entitled to a direction to the respondents  to
\nput  the  appellant-landlord  in possession of\tthe  demised
\nbuilding.  The eviction petition, R.C.C.No.71 of 1981 on the
\nfile  of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent\t Controller,
\nRajahmundry is ordered.\t We grant time to the respondents to
\nvacate\tthe demised building and put the  appellant-landlord
\nin  vacant  possession of the same till December  31,  1999.
\nThe  appeal is accordingly allowed but in the  circumstances
\nof the case without costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999 Author: S S Quadri Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: BODDU NARAYANAMMA Vs. RESPONDENT: SRI VENKATARAMA ALUMINIUM CO. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/1999 BENCH: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri JUDGMENT: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. This appeal, by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBoddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T16:09:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T16:09:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":5669,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\",\"name\":\"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T16:09:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-11T16:09:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T16:09:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999"},"wordCount":5669,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999","name":"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T16:09:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boddu-narayanamma-vs-sri-venkatarama-aluminium-co-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Boddu Narayanamma vs Sri Venkatarama Aluminium Co. & … on 21 September, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}