ORDER
1. In this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the tenant is the petitioner. The learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, as well as the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court-appellate authority), agreed with the contention of the landlord's (respondent) and ordered eviction. Therefore, the tenant filed the revision assailing the illegality of the eviction order in RC No.708 of 1997 dated 25-6-1999, as confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 23-2-2000 in RA No.223 of 1999.
2. The parties are referred by their status in the rent control case. Petitioner No.l is the mother. Petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 is the daughter. They filed a petition for eviction of the tenant (respondent) under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) and under Section 12 of the Act. Their case is that the respondent is a tenant in mulgi 5-1-750/2, situated at HaridasMarket, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs.715/-. The building is more than 75 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the petitioners want to demolish the entire building and construct a new building in its place. After such reconstruction, the petitioners want to occupy the suit mulgi for their own use and bona fide occupation to start business in electrical goods. The petitioner No.1 is idle, and with collaboration of petitioner No.3, wants to start a business, and therefore, by a notice, they demanded the tenant to vacate the premises. As he refused to do so in his reply notice, they filed the eviction petition. The tenant opposed the petition inter alia contending that the mulgi is strong enough, and does not require demolition, that after the death of original landlord, the petitioners who succeeded to the property approached the tenant requesting for payment of substantial amount of goodwill, and when he disagreed, they started creating troubles by not accepting the rent, by throwing garbage in front of the tenanted premises and by making false complaints to the police. It was also opposed on the ground that the petitioners have got a non-residential premises in their possession, occupied by them since a long time, and if the petitioners are really interested in doing business, they would have commenced by now, but with a view to evict the petitioner illegally they filed the petition with false, fictious and untenable grounds.
3. Petitioner No.2 was examined as PW1 and petitioner No.1 was examined as PW2. They also marked Exs.P1 to P7, including Ex.P1, which is rough sketch of the building plan. The tenant examined himself as RW1, and also examined RWs.2 and 3, and marked Exs.R1 to R17. On appreciation of evidence, the Rent Controller recorded a finding that the building is old and necessarily to be demolished and reconstructed. The Rent Controller also held that the tenant has another house of hisown from where he can carry on his own business by making necessary alterations, and therefore, he cannot be allowed to continue in the petition schedule property, which is in a dilapidated condition. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction.
4. The appellate Judge dismissed the tenant's appeal holding that not only the leased premises, but the entire building requires reconstruction, and that the tenant has open space in front of his residential house in Malakpet area where he may start business, and therefore, he cannot be permitted to stay in the dilapidated premises, belonging to the petitioners.
5. Sri Balehand, learned Counsel for the tenant firstly submits that petition under Section 10(3)(b)(iii) is not maintainable as the petitioners admittedly have another mulgi, to the possession of which they are entitled to. He secondly urges that when the eviction of the tenant is ordered by the Rent Controller for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, the same cannot be valid unless the landlord gives an undertaking as required under Section 12(2) of the Act. He lastly contends that the petitioners failed to prove that they bona fide require the mulgi for the purpose of commencing the business in electrical goods.
6. The learned Counsel for the landlords Sri P.R. Prasad submits that when the landlords bona fide require the leased premises for commencing the business of their own, even when the eviction is sought as per the provisions of Section 12, the landlords need not give an undertaking, for reinduction of the tenant into the reconstructed building. He further submits that the learned Rent Controller and the appellate Judge upon appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding that the landlords required the building for their own purpose, and in view of theconcurrent findings, interference by the High Court under Section 22 of the Act, is not warranted.
7. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice the relevant principles of law applicable where the landlord files an application under Section 10(3)(b)(iii) and Section 12 of the Act.
8. Section 10(3)(b)(iii) of the Acts reads as under :
'Eviction of tenants :--(1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 12 and 13.
3(b) if the landlord who has more buildings than one in the city, town or village concerned is in occupation of one such building and he bona fide requires another building instead, for his own occupation;
(iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned, which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise :--
(a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application, or
(b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence.
Section 12(1) and (2) read as under :
'Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for reconstruction :--(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, on an application made by a landlord the Controller may, if he is satisfied :
(a) that the building is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs, alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; or
(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 a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished.
Pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.
(2) No order for recovery of possession under this 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 extent, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1), for his re-occupation before the expiry of such period as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf.'
9. Section 12 deals with a situation where the landlord bona fide requires the leased building for repairs, alterations or aidditions or for reconstruction. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the building by satisfying the Rent Controller that the building is bona fide required for carrying out repairs, alterations, additions or for erecting new building. If the building consists of more than two doors, the same facility is not available to the landlord. Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act obliges the landlord to give an undertaking to the Rent Controller that the building on completion of the repairsof reconstruction will be offered to the tenant who delivered possession in pursuance of an order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 12 for tenant's reoccupation before the expiry of the period prescribed by the Rent Controller. Indeed, no order for recovery of possession under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act can be passed by the Rent Controller unless the landlord gives an undertaking, as required under sub-section (2) of Section 12 thereof.
10. A plain reading of the two provisions viz., Section 10(3)(b)(iii) shows that a landlord may seek eviction of the tenant from a non-residential building for the purpose of business, which the landlord is carrying on or for the purpose of business, which the landlord bona fide proposes to commence. However, if the landlord occupied a non-residential building in the city, which is his own or if the landlord is the owner of other non-residential building to the possession of which he is entitled to, such a landlord shall not be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(b)(iii). In such a event, it cannot be said that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for commencing business.
11. In Padmanabha Setty v. Papiah Setty, : [1966]3SCR868 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression 'to the possession of which the landlord is entitled to' appearing in Section 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, which is pari materia with Section 10(3)(b)(iii) of the A.P. Act. The Apex Court ruled as under :
'........ Section 8(3)(a)(ii) deals with twotypes of cases; first where the landlord is in occupation of a non-residential building which is owned by him, and secondly, a non-residential building of which he is in occupation not as alandlord but otherwise. The object of the Act is to prevent unreasonable evictions of tenants. Can it be said that the Legislature is considering it to be unreasonable for a landlord to shift to his own premises while he is in occupation of tenanted premises over which he has not an absolute right of possession but only a right to remain in possession till one of the conditions in Section 8(2) is satisfied and over one of which he has no control? ......In our view, in thecontext the words 'entitled to possession ' have a more positive content and are more akin to the right of possession which an owner has in respect of the building owned and occupied by him'
12. Therefore, the landlord, who is in occupation of a non-residential building, which is owned by him, is debarred from seeking eviction of the tenant from the other non-residential building or other portion of the non-residential building because as held by the Supreme Court, the expression 'to the possession of which the landlord is entitled to' has more positive content and akin to the right of possession, which the owner has in respect of the building. In view of this, in any application under Section 10(3)(b)(iii) of the Act, the landlord has to plead and prove two aspects -- firstly, that he requires the premises for the purpose of a business to be commenced or for the purpose of carrying on the existing business, and secondly, the landlord has to prove that he is not in occupation of a non-residential building owned by him in the city. As a necessary corollary, the objective criteria for the Rent Controller to arrive at a satisfaction of bona fide requirement is whether or not the landlord is in occupation of a non-residential building, owned by him. In an application under Section 10(3)(b)(iii), it is always valid defence for the tenant to plead and prove that the landlord is in occupation of a non-residential building,owned by the landlord, in which event, the landlords petition on the ground of bona fide requirement for eviction should fail.
13. As noticed above, Section 12 is a special provision. It is applicable notwithstanding the other provisions of the Act. That is to say, Section 10 of the Act. A landlord, who files an application either under Section 10(2)(i) (wilful default) or Section 10(2)(ii)(a) (subletting) or Section 10(2)(ii)(b) (using the building for unaccepted purpose) or Section 10(2)(iii) and (iv) (acts of wastage and causing nuisance) or Section 10(3)(i) (bona fide occupation of residential house) or Section 10(3)(iii) (bona fide purpose of starting business in a non-residential building), may also simultaneously seek eviction of the tenant for effecting repairs or for reconstruction of the building. In an application, which is filed - for example, for the bona fide purpose of commencing business, the landlord can still succeed under Section 12 of the Act even if he fails to plead and prove properly the bona fide purpose of starting business. That is the effect of non-obstante clause in Section 12. To say in other words, the Rent Controller, can order eviction of the tenant if the building is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord either for carrying out repairs or for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, even if the landlord fails to prove either wilful default or bona fide requirement or other grounds of eviction.
14. The other important aspect of the matter is whether the landlord can maintain a petition both under Section 10 and or under Section 12 of the Act, and whether the landlord can take the ground of demolition and reconstruction as an alternative ground. It is also necessary to examine whether the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant under Section 12 of the Act, without strict compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. It is well settled that the Rent Control Legislation is beneficial to the tenants and restricts the rights of the landlords. It is also well settled that while interpreting the Rent Control Legislation, more limitations should not be imposed upon the landlord to hold the property as it would expose the Rent Control Legislation to the vice of arbitrariness and unconstitutionality. If any authority is required for this, we only need to refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in H. Shiva Rao v. Cecilia Pereira, : AIR1987SC248 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, : [1987]1SCR516 . In Shiva Rao's case, the Supreme Court laid down as under :
'It has to be borne in mind that Rent Control Legislations are beneficial to the tenant and restrictive of the rights of the landlords - these legislations were passed to meet the problem of shortage of accommodation in cities and towns ..... Courts must find out the literal meaning of the expression in the task of construction. In doing so if the expressions are ambiguous then the construction that fulfils the object of the legislation must provide the key to the meaning. Courts must not make a mockery of legislation and should take a constructive approach to fulfil the purpose and for that purpose, if necessary, iron out the creases.'
In Yudhister's case, the Supreme Court observed as under :
'..... It is well settled that though the Rent Act is a beneficial legislation, it must be read reasonably and justly. If more limitations are imposed upon the right to hold the property then it would expose itself to the vice of unconstitutionality. Such an approach in interpretation of beneficial statutes is not warranted. It is true that one should iron out the creases and should take acreative approach as to what was intended by a particular provision but there is always, unless rebutted, a presumption as to constitutionality and the Act should be so read as to prevent it from being exposed to the vice of unconstitutionality.'
15. In the light of the settled law of interpretation of Rent Control Legislation, and also having regard to the non-obstante clause in Section 12 of the Act, I must hold that the landlord is entitled to take an alternative plea in relation to Section 12 of the Act, and if he satisfies the conditions in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, and gives an undertaking as per sub-section (2) of Section 12, he is bound to succeed even if he fails to prove any other ground like, wilful default, subletting, bona fide requirement etc. Equally it must be remembered that a reading of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12, and sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act together, would show that the right given to the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant for bona fide purpose of repairs or reconstruction, is subject to strict compliance of the condition of giving undertaking as per sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Be it noted that under sub-section (5) of Section 10, it is always open to the tenant to seek restoration of possession if the landlord himself fails to occupy the building after obtaining order of eviction under any of the sub-clauses of Section 10(3), and the landlord who obtains an order under Section 12 cannot convert a residential building into a non-residential building and vice-versa without prior permission from the Controller, authorised by the Government under Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that whether the landlord succeeds under Section 10(3) or Section 12 of the Act, it is always open to the tenant to approach the Rent Controller for restoration of possession if the landlord fails to occupy the building for his own businessor if the landlord fails to reinduct the tenant as per the undertaking given under Section 12(2) of the Act. These provisions would show that strict compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 12 is a condition precedent for the Rent Controller to arrive at a satisfaction that the landlord bona fide requires the building for carrying out repairs etc., or demolition and construction. In this background, I will examine some of the precedents cited by the Counsel at the Bar.
16. In Trade Wings Private Ltd. v. Dr. G. Lakshminarayana, 1977 (II) APLJ 56 (HC) SN, a learned single Judge held that Section 12 has no application to a case where the landlord wants the building for his occupation, even if he is to demolish the premises and construct a new building. In New Peaking Chines Hotel v. M/s. Hindustan Builders, 1989 (2) APLJ 133 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court considered the interplay between Section 10 and Section 12 of the Act. The landlords filed eviction before the Rent Controller contending that they require the building for demolition and reconstruction. Later they also filed another eviction petition on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller found that the tenant committed wilful default, and that requirement of the landlord is bona fide and ordered eviction on both grounds. However, the landlord was directed to give an undertaking as required under Section 12 of the Act. The landlord as well as the tenant preferred appeals before the appellate Court. The appellate Judge confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant has committed wilful default, and also found that the landlord requires the building for demolition and reconstruction, and dismissed the appeals. The landlord's appeal against the order directing to give undertaking was allowed on the ground that eviction was ordered on the ground of wilful default, and therefore, no undertaking is necessary. Inthe revision petition filed by the tenant, one of the questions was whether the landlord is compulsorily required to give an undertaking as per Section 12(2) of the Act. The Division Bench, examined the scope of Section 12 and laid down as under :
'The undertaking contemplated under Section 12 of the Act is required when recovery of possession is ordered under that particular section. The idea is to safeguard the interests of the tenant by providing him a provision for occupation of the premises after reconstruction. But the same condition need not be imposed when eviction is ordered on grounds other than demolition and reconstruction. The learned appellate Judge was therefore, right in holding that such a condition is unnecessary.'
17. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Khaja Moinuddin v. M/s. Gayatri Iron Company, 1994 (1) ALT 38 (HC) NRC, also lays down the principle that though the tenant is not entitled to premises identical in dimensions, but it should be as nearly equal to as practicable, the condition of giving undertaking under Section 12(2) is mandatory. In Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd v. D. Venkateswara Rao, : 1997(2)ALT249 (DB), a learned single Judge held that when in an eviction petition by the landlord, the ground of repairs and reconstruction is not an independent ground, but is connected with bona fide requirement of the landlord, an undertaking contemplated under Section 12(2) is not required.
18. In K. Stayanarayana v. P. Seshagiri Rao, : 1995(2)ALT100 , the landlords filed petitions before the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground that the building is required for demolition as the construction is not in accordance with vastu shastra. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions granting permission to the landlord. Theappellate authority confirmed the order of Rent Controller. The view of both the Courts below was accepted by the High Court, which dismissed the tenant's revision petitions holding that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for reconstruction in accordance with vastu shastra. On appeal by special leave in Kondeti Suryanarayana v. Pinninthi Seshagiri Rao, : AIR2000SC70 , the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court. Before the Supreme Court, it was urged on behalf of the tenant that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Judge is contrary to the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2) of the Act. While allowing the appeal of the tenant, the Supreme Court declared the law as under :
'A perusal of the aforementioned 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..... 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.'
19. Another judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Modern Tailoring Hall v. H.S. Venkusa, : [1997]3SCR984 , under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986 is relied on by Sri P.R. Prasad. As can be gathered from the reported judgment, Section 21(1)(h) of Karnataka Act confers on the landlord a right to claim eviction of building for the purpose of bona fide requirement for self-occupation. Whereas Section 21(1)(j) confers on the landlord a right to seek eviction, to have the building demolished and reconstructed, but subject to right ofentry of tenant. While examining these provisions, the Supreme Court observed that the rights under the two provisions are encircled with corresponding obligations inasmuch as under the later provision, the landlord is required to give an undertaking so as to ensure observance of the terms of re-entry on the construction of the building. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the landlord's claim was based on Section 21(1)(h) or founded on Section 21(1)(j)? It is not clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court whether Section 21(1)(j) has a non-obstante clause in it to treat the right of the landlord so as to override the other situations and grounds of eviction. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in the context observed as under :
'...... The ground of eviction in the twoprovisions being mutually exclusive have flowing therefrom separate individual rights and obligations and they cannot be permitted to overlap so as to confer on the Court the discretion of employing one provision over the other. An application of the landlord, if not falling under Section 21(1)(h), would on its own, merit dismissal. The Court cannot treat it in its discretion as one under Section 21(1)(j) and order an unwanted eviction....'
20. I may hasten to add that, as already noticed above, Section 12 starts with a non-obstante clause, and therefore, even if the landlord fails to prove bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(b)(iii), by virtue of non-obstante clause under Section 12(1), the landlord can still simultaneously plead and prove that the building is required for repairs etc., or demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the interplay between Section 12(l)(h) and 21(1)(j) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, may not apply while interpreting the provisions of the A.P. Rent Control Act.
21. Having regard to the legal provisions and the relevant case law, the following principles emerge :
(1) The A.P. (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 confers on the landlord the right to seek eviction of a tenant from the building for the bona fide purpose of starting business, and also on the ground that the building is immediately required for repairs etc., or demolition and reconstruction.
(2) Likewise, the landlord has a right to seek eviction of the tenant on any of the other grounds under Section 10(2), 10(3), and also simultaneously on the ground mentioned in Section 12 of the Act.
(3) In an eviction petition, founded on different grounds, as mentioned above, even if the landlord fails to prove the ground of wilful default, subletting, bona fide requirement for self-occupation, still the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction if he satisfies the Rent Controller that he bona fide requires the building for repairs etc., or demolition and reconstruction. Any eviction order is subject to the landlord giving an undertaking that on completion of the repairs etc., or reconstruction, the building will be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order of eviction under Section 12(1). The premises to be offered and reoccupied by the tenant need not be identical in dimensions, but must be as nearly equal to as practicable.
(4) The condition of giving an undertaking under Section 12(2) need not be imposed when eviction is ordered on the ground other than demolition and reconstruction. In such an event, the law contemplates that the landlordwho pleads and proves any of the grounds mentioned in Section 10(2) and 10(3), has to succeed on these grounds alone, and it is immaterial whether the landlord effects repairs or demolishes the building.
(5) When an application is filed under Section 10(3)(b)(iii), even if bona fide requirement is proved for self-occupation of commencing business, the landlord should fail if he is in occupation or deemed to be in occupation of a building owned by him. In such an event, the purpose of self-occupation is legally not bona fide. However, if the landlord is in occupation of a rented building, the same is not a bar for seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(b)(iii).
22. Keeping the above principles in view, I will consider the contentions of the tenant and the landlord. Sri S. Balchand, the learned Counsel for the tenant and Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the landlords did not dispute the following factual position - That the premises (mulgi) in question bearing No.5-1-750/2 is one of the three portions of the building, that the part of the portion bearing No.5-1-750/2 towards western side of the petition schedule property is dilapidated and is not in use, and that the other two portions bearing Nos.5-1-750/3 and 5-1-750/4 towards eastern side of the petition schedule, mulgies, are in occupation of the landlords and are vacant. That is to say, except the petition schedule mulgi bearing 5-1-750/2, the other two portions in the building are vacant. It is also admitted that both the Courts below have recorded a finding that the building is old and in a dilapidated condition, requiring reconstruction as the western unused portion is in crumbles. The landlords require the building in possession of the tenant for starting their own business in electrical goods. Though Sri S. Balechand pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1(petitioner No.2) and PW2 (petitioner No.1), to defeat the contention of bona fide requirement, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners pleaded that the building in question is required for starting business by petitioner Nos.l and 3 i.e., mother and daughter, and the evidence on this is consistent. Therefore, I must hold that the landlords do require the building for commencing their own business. As observed by various authorities, the landlord can only maintain petition on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(b)(iii) of the Act, only when the landlords are not in occupation of a building which is owned by them and to the possession of which they are entitled to. It is admitted that not only the western side of the premises in question and also two other portions on the eastern side are vacant, are in occupation of petitioners as owners, to the possession of which the landlords are entitled to occupy for commencing business. Therefore, though the landlords have pleaded and proved that they require the building for commencing business in electrical goods, in view of the admitted position that other portions are vacant, they are not entitled for order of eviction of the tenant, as they do not in law have any bona fide requirement.
23. Sri P.R. Prasad, submits that the tenant's house is located on the main road, and he can shift his business of printing press to his residential building. Indeed this also found favour with the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Judge. However, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the tenant, the landlords never pleaded this aspect in their petition, and any amount of evidence in the absence of pleading cannot be looked into. Therefore, on this aspect I must hold that the Courts below erred in giving undue importance to this aspect. Likewise, the submission of Sri P.R. Prasad that the tenant has shifted his business to some other premises and as asubsequent event, this has a bearing on the adjudication, is devoid of substance, and I cannot agree with the same. It is not clear when the tenant procured alternative accommodation, and it is not clear whether the tenant started a branch for the sake of his other family members. The visiting card enclosed to the counter-affidavit in this case shows the address of the tenant, both at the place of petition schedule building and at the new place. In view of the finding recorded by me, the landlords are not entitled for an order of eviction against the tenant.
24. As a principle of law, I have already held that the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 even if he fails in any of the other grounds, which he takes simultaneously or alternatively. Both the Courts below have held that the western portion has already crumbled, and that the building requires repairs and reconstruction. The question is whether the landlords are entitled to seek eviction. Petitioner No.2 (landlord) as PW1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that they are not giving any undertaking that they will give mulgi after making reconstruction. When the landlords filed application under Section 12 of the Act, an undertaking by the landlords is not a concession. The law requires an undertaking, as a condition precedent, from the landlords that the tenant will be reinducted after reconstruction. The language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 shows that the learned Rent Controller cannot pass an order of eviction under Section 12(1) unless the landlords gives such an undertaking. Therefore, the categorical assertion by PW1 is of no consequence when once a finding is reached on the basis of evidence that the building in question requires reconstruction. Indeed, the appellate Judge observed in his judgment, not only the demised premises, but the entire building requires reconstruction. This finding is notspecifically challenged by the landlords (sic tenant). The tenant's Counsel only submits that if eviction is ordered for the purpose of reconstruction, an undertaking by landlords should be insisted upon as a condition precedent. Therefore, I must hold that though the landlords should fail on the ground in relation to Section 10(3)(b)(iii), they should, however, succeed under Section 12(1). Therefore, the order of the I Additional Rent Controller, as confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate Judge), insofar as the order of eviction on the ground that the landlords bona fide require non-residential premises in question for the purpose of commencing business, is set aside. The landlords petition RC No.708 of 1997 is disposed of directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlords within a period of one month from the date of landlords giving an undertaking, as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, to the I Additional Rent Controller. If the landlords fail to give undertaking on or before 28-2-2001, as required under law, RC No.708 of 1997, stands dismissed.
25. The CRP is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.