1979 (2) TMI 197 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms law practice as 'business' for eviction purposes under Andhra Pradesh building law

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case concerning the interpretation of the term 'business' in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, ... Meaning of 'business' in rent-control legislation - practice of a liberal profession as 'business' - bona fide requirement for landlord's occupation - contextual construction of statutory language - prevention of unreasonable evictionMeaning of 'business' in rent-control legislation - practice of a liberal profession as 'business' - bona fide requirement for landlord's occupation - Whether the practice of the legal profession is 'business' within the meaning of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the term 'business' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is a word of wide import whose meaning must be ascertained from the context of the statute in which it appears. The Act aims to regulate leasing, control rent and prevent unreasonable eviction; its scheme is of general application to non-residential as well as residential buildings. There is no textual or policy reason to exclude liberal professions from the ambit of 'business' for the limited purpose of permitting a landlord who is a member of a liberal profession to recover premises for bona fide occupation to carry on his practice. A narrow, commercial-only construction would produce an anomalous result whereby most provisions of the Act (for example, determination of fair rent and protection against eviction) would apply to premises owned by an Advocate but, uniquely, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) would not. Reliance on meanings ascribed to 'business' in other statutes or contexts was rejected; words must take their colour from the statute in which they occur. The Court considered earlier authorities which adopted narrower or different approaches in different statutory contexts [Meenakshi Amma & Ors.], [R. Rajappa & Ors.], [Stuchbery & Ors.], and other decisions, but found them inapposite because they interpreted 'business' in different statutory schemes. Having regard to the object and context of the Andhra Pradesh Act, the Court concluded that the practice of law falls within the expression 'business' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii), and that a landlord-Advocate may seek eviction if he bona fide requires the premises to carry on his profession.The practice of the legal profession is 'business' within Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960; the High Court's decision so holding is affirmed.Final Conclusion: Appeal dismissed; the Court affirmed that, for the purposes of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the practice of the legal profession is to be treated as 'business,' permitting eviction where the landlord bona fide requires the premises to carry on that practice. Issues involved: Interpretation of the term 'business' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.Summary:The case involved a dispute where the respondent, an Advocate, sought eviction of the appellant, a tenant engaged in manufacturing art jewelry, from the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate. The appellant contested, arguing that the practice of the legal profession is not 'business' as per the Act. The High Court upheld the eviction order, considering the practice of law as 'business'. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging this interpretation.Key Details:- The appellant's counsel argued for a narrow interpretation of 'business', distinguishing it from 'profession' and contending that the Act only allows eviction for business purposes in non-residential buildings.- The Act aims to regulate leasing of buildings, control rent, and prevent unreasonable eviction, applying to residential and non-residential buildings.- Section 10(3)(a)(iii) allows eviction from a non-residential building for the landlord's business purposes, whether existing or proposed.- The Court rejected the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the term 'business' in the Act should be broadly construed to include the practice of the legal profession.- Previous cases and judgments were cited to support the interpretation that 'business' can encompass professions like law, ensuring no discrimination against liberal professions.- The Court disagreed with applying interpretations from other statutes to define 'business' in the present context, emphasizing the need to interpret terms within the specific statute.- Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the practice of law constitutes 'business' under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and dismissed the appeal with costs.