Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5997 of 1999
PETITIONER:
JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAM
RESPONDENT:
BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB. INDIA LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/2001
BENCH:
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 Supp(4) SCR 590
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal brings under challenge the validity of the order of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in H.R.R.P. No. 1256 of 1995 on February
22, 1999 allowing the revision filed by the respondent (respondents 1 to 3
are avatars of the same company and are referred to as, ’the respondent’)
and dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant.
The appellant is the landlord of premises being number No. 12/1, Prim-rose
Road, Bangalore (for short, ’the premises’) of which the respondent is
tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800. The appellant filed eviction petition
seeking eviction of the respondent on two grounds but only one ground under
Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short ’the
Act’) survives-he reasonably and bona fide requires accommodation for his
personal occupation, both for residence as well as for professional
requirements. The respondent contested the petition denying the personal
requirement of the appellant and taking the plea that the house in
occupation of the appellant being a big house has enough accommodation for
his residence and his professional activities.
On considering the evidence placed on record, the learned Rent Control-ler
found that a case under Section 21(l)(h) was made out and ordered eviction
of the respondent on July 5, 1995. Aggrieved by the said order of the
learned Rent Controller, the respondent filed revision before the High
Court which was allowed by the impugned order. It is against that order
that the appellant is in appeal before us, by special leave.
Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has contended
that the appellant initiated proceedings for eviction of the respondent
during the life lime of his father and it had become impossible for him to
get along with his step mother; the ground of bona fide requirement was
established and the trial court gave effect to it but the High Court
reversed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court which is
unsustainable in law.
Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondent, argues that
alter the death of his father the house in occupation of the appellant is
available to him both for personal as well as professional requirements
and, therefore, it can not be said that he reasonably and bona fide
requires the premises for his personal occupation. As the Rent Controller
did not correctly appreciate the facts, the High Court on a proper
consideration of the material placed before it reversed the findings taking
the view that the need was not bona fide and this Court, under Article 136
of the Constitution, would not disturb such findings.
The only question that arises for consideration is : whether the appellant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
has proved reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises to warrant
eviction of the respondent under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section
21 of the Act.
The facts are not in dispute. The premises in question belongs to the
appellant and that he let it out to the respondent sometime in 1976 on a
monthly rent of Rs. 1300 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1800 per
month. The appellant, finding it difficult to get along with his father and
the step mother on account of day to day disputes, invoked the jurisdiction
of the Rent Con-troller under Section 21(l)(h) of the Act seeking eviction
of the respondent. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence found
that the need of the respondent was established. However, the High Court in
revision took note of the facts that the building of the appellant’s
father, in which he is presently residing, is a huge building, that the
step brothers and sisters are staying abroad; that the step mother had not
demanded the respondent to vacate the premises. On that premise, it
concluded that the appellant’s claim that he cannot pursue his professional
activities in premises in which he is presently living, was not
substantiated. We are unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the
High Court. The case set up by the respondent is that after the death of
the father of the appellant, he became the sole owner of the premises and
therefore he had enough accommodation available both for his residence as
well as for professional requirements as such requirement of the premises
is not real and bona fide. This was not admitted by the appellant. Nothing
has been placed on record to show that the appellant has become the sole
owner of that buidling in which he and his step mother are living. At the
best the appellant might be having a share in it. Merely because the
appellant is living in a room of the huge building which does not
exclusively belong to him, it cannot be said that his requirement to occupy
the premises for his residence and professional requirements is not
reasonable and bona fide. In our view being in occupation of a portion of a
building holding a fractional undivided share, is no bar to invoke the
provision of Section 21(l)(h) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we
set aside the order under challenge and restore the order of the learned
Rent Controller, in H.R.C. No. 10541 of 1989 dated July 5, 1995.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks six months time to vacate the
premises. Having regard to the fact that the respondent is business concern
and has been in occupation of the premises for over 25 years, we consider
it just and appropriate to grant time till 30th April, 2002. The respondent
shall file usual undertaking within four weeks from today.
The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.