Rasik Stores & Ors. Vs. Navin V. Hantodkar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16221 of 1998
( From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.98 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No. 33 of 1997 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.98 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No. 33 of 1997 )
Petitioner: Rasik Stores & Ors.
Respondent: Navin V. Hantodkar & Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16221 of 1998
( From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.98 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No. 33 of 1997 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.98 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No. 33 of 1997 )
Judges: S.B. MAJUMDAR & M. JAGANNADHA RAO , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 11, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. V.N. Ganpule , Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P. Mayee , Advocate for Mr. A. M. Khanwilkar , Advocate with him for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
Rent Control And Eviction
C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949
Section 13(3)(vi) – Bona-fide requirment -Land lord having his own other premises in adjoining part of same premises – Clear findings that accomodation in possession is insufficient – Held that inview of the findings arrived at and accepted by High Court contention is repelled. Appeal dismissed . Boorgu Jagdishwar-aiah’s Case ( JT 1998 (6) SC 628 ) referred and followed .
Held:
Moment it is shown that the landlord is occupying any other premises of his own in the city , his suit for bonafide requir-ment 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 . 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 which repelled similar contention . ( Para 2 )
There is a clear findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Court that 300 sq.ft. of the accomoda-tion available with the ~4~landlord in the building is insufficient for two doctors as the landlord and his wife both are practising doctors . ( Para 3 )
Cases Reffered:
1. Boorgu Jadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. , JT 1998 (6) SC 628 ( Para 2 )
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1 . 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 read as under :-
” 13 .(3) If after hearing the parties the controller is satis-fied –
(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 “
2 . Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is right when he contended 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 requirment 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 deci-sion of the 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Boorgu Jadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. , JT 1998 (6) SC 628 which repelled similar contention . The said decision has taken the view on a Parimateria provision found in Andhra PRadesh Building ( Lease , Rent and Eviction ) Control Act , 1960 wherein Section 10(3)(a)(iii) provided that a landlord may apply to the con-troller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building , in case it is any other non residen-tial building , if the landlord is not occupying a non – residen-tial 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 court below . We think this would frustrate the purpose of the Act . Here was a claim set up by the landlord 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 . ”
Accepted the said contention , this Court remanded the proceedings for getting a findings on this aspect .
3 . In the facts of the present case , there is a clear findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Court that 300 sq.ft. of the accomodation available with the respondent -landlord in the building is insufficient for two doctors as the landlord and his wife both are practising doctors .
4 . 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 stare in the face of the petitioners .
5 . In the result , the petition fails and is dismissed .
1 . 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 read as under :-
” 13 .(3) If after hearing the parties the controller is satis-fied –
(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 “
2 . Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is right when he contended 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 requirment 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 deci-sion of the 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Boorgu Jadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. , JT 1998 (6) SC 628 which repelled similar contention . The said decision has taken the view on a Parimateria provision found in Andhra PRadesh Building ( Lease , Rent and Eviction ) Control Act , 1960 wherein Section 10(3)(a)(iii) provided that a landlord may apply to the con-troller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building , in case it is any other non residen-tial building , if the landlord is not occupying a non – residen-tial 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 court below . We think this would frustrate the purpose of the Act . Here was a claim set up by the landlord 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 . ”
Accepted the said contention , this Court remanded the proceedings for getting a findings on this aspect .
3 . In the facts of the present case , there is a clear findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Court that 300 sq.ft. of the accomodation available with the respondent -landlord in the building is insufficient for two doctors as the landlord and his wife both are practising doctors .
4 . 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 stare in the face of the petitioners .
5 . In the result , the petition fails and is dismissed .
