LexANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR versus SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR
v.
SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR
JANUARY 29, 1991
B
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J];)
c
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging HDuse Rates Control Act;
1947-Section 13( J)(c)-Eviction-Whether covers non-residential
premises.
Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Att,
1947-Section 13(l)(c)-"Convicted of using the ptemises"-Cons-
truction of-Legislative intention-Repeated user of the premises for
sale of adulterated food and convicted twice-Convlctit:Jn whether
justified.
. -
D
Respondent-Landlac!J . ~tar1ed an evldlon
pro~eeding under
T
Section 13(l)(c) of the Bombay Rent Ac:t qainst the petitioner-tenant,
running a shop, selling sweet-iheats and farsen on the tenanted p~
mises, as he was convicted twice under the Pre~tiOn Of Food Adul-
teration Act.
~
Accepting claim of the land-lady the High Court ordered eviction.
G
H
Tenant contending that ''con'ricted of using the premises" in Sft.
tion 13(l)(c) be lim1ted to offences involving the user Of the premises
that the provision does not cover non-residential premises, meet the
Special Leave Petition •.
Dismissing the petition, this Court,
HELD: 1. Section 13(l)(c) covers both remdential as well as non-
residential premises. If clause (c) is not applicable to business premises,
there is no other similar provision in the Bombay Rent Act relating to
the business premises. The consequence would be that the tenant in
business premises could use the premises for committing any offence or
he could commit nuisance and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbour-
ing occupiers and yet claim that he is not liable to be evicted on that
grounds. Whereas, the tenant of residential premises would not be able
to commit such offence without the penalty of eviction. Such an
inter·"',..-~tation would render the Section vulnerable to attack under
Article l4 of the Constitution. [lSSD-G]
152
,>-.
...
·~· -
-
A.R. KARLEKAR v. SMT. J.R. BEDEKAR [SHETTY, J.]
153
2. The expression "convicted of using the premises" cannot be
given too liberal construction so as to cover every case of conviction of
the tenant. [156B]
3. Section 13( 1 )( c) was not intended to be a moral code of conduct
for the tenant. For each and every offence committed at the premises,
the tenant cannot be exposed to the risk-of eviction. The crime may be
forced upon the tenant at the premises by third parties. There may be
casual or incidental crimes. There may be technical offences connected
with the trade or licence to trade. There may be crimes where use of the
premises has nothing to do except being the scene of the offence. All
such cases cannot satisfy the requirements of Section 13(1)( c). [157 A-Bl
A
B
4. The tenant must take advantage of his tenancy of the premises
C
and of the opportunity they afford for permitting the crime. Only such
crimes could fall within the scope~ Section 13(1)(c). There need not be
continuous for repeated user of the premises for committing such
crimes. [157B-C]
[In the instant case, the tenant used the premises for carrying out illegal
sale of adulterated food along with his usual business in sweet meats and
farsen. He used the premises deliberately and taken advantage of his
tenancy for committing the offences in the course of his trade. He can be
evicted under Section 13(1)(c).] [f57C-D]
S. Schneiders and Sons Ltd. v. Abrahams, (19251 1 KB 301-
followed.
'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
No. 12541of1990.
~
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.1990 of the Bombay
F
[
High Court in W.P. No. 2677 and 4128of1983.
~
U.R. Lalit, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the
Petitioner.
M.C. Bhandare, V.N. Ganpule, Satish K. Agnihotri and Mrs.
Suman B. Rastogi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
K. JAGANNATIJA SHETTY, J. The shop premises belonging
H
-
A
B
c
D
E
G
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [1991] I S.C.R.
to the respondent-landlady was taken on rent by the petitioner for
business purposes. The premises are within the scope of the Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('The
Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioner has been carrying on business in
sweet-meats and farsen. The landlady brought action to recover pos-
session of the premises under Section 13(1)(c) on the ground that the·
tenant has been convicted of using the premises. It is not in dispute that
the tenan·t was convicted on three oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.