Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RASIK AUTO STORES & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NAVIN V HANTODKAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/06/1998
BENCH:
S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO.
JUDGMENT:
D E R
We have heard learned senior counsel for the
petitioners. His only contention was that in the light of
Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order,
1949, because the landlord is having other premises of his
own in the adjoining part of the very suit premises, the
suit for possession of the suit premises was liable to fail.
The said provision reads as under :-
"13.(3) If after hearing the parties the Controller
is satisfied.
(i) .........
(ii) .........
(iii) .........
(iv) .........
(v) .........
(vi) That the landlord needs the premises or a
portion thereof, for the purpose of his bonafide occupation
provided that he is not occupying any other premises of his
own in the city or town concerned; or.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners it right
when he contends that if the above clause is literally read,
it would indicate that moment it is shown that the landlord
is occupying any other premises of his own in the city, his
suit for bonafide requirement of the suit premises can never
be entertained and nothing more is required to be shown save
and except establishing on record that the landlord is
having other premises of his own in the city. It is not in
dispute that the suit premises are situated in a building
where in other part the respondent - landlord is carrying on
his clinic and his need is for expansion of the said clinic
and that is why he requires the suit premises. The
aforesaid contention of learned senior counsel would have
required closer scrutiny but for the fact that there is a
decision of the 3 Judge Bench of this Court in Boorgu
Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons vs. Pushpa Trading Co. 1998 (5) SCC
572, which repelled similar contention. The said decision
has taken the view on a pari materia provision found in
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1960, wherein Section 10(3)(a)(iii)provided that a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing
the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building
is 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. Construing these words, it was observed
in para 8 of the report, as under :-
"That the aspects of quality,
size and suitability of the building have
been totally put out of consideration by
the courts below. We think this would
frustrate the purposes of the Act. Here
would frustrate the purposes of the that
the non-residential premises he owned did
not serve the purpose of his need of
setting up a textile and cloth business
and that the need could only be met in
seeking eviction of the tenant from the
premises sought."
Accepting the said contention, this Court remanded the
proceedings for getting a finding on this aspect.
In the facts of the present case, there is a clear
finding recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the
appellant court that 300 sq.ft. of the accommodation
available with the respondent-landlord in the building is
insufficient for two doctors as the landlord and his wife
both are practising doctors.
In view of this finding arrived at on facts and
accepted by the High Court, in our view, no need for remand
would arise. The ratio of the aforesaid decision would
squarely state in the face of the petitioners.
In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.