BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADA versus GOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 15-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADA 
A 
v. 
GOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA 
JANUARY 15, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.) 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947-
Ss. l 3(/)(g) and 13(.2)-Eviction-Denial of eviction on the ground of C 
comparative hardship even when ground of eviction made out-Propriety of-
Held, eviction can be denied if comparative hardship is proved against the 
landlord even when ground of eviction is made out-Section 13(l)(g) has 
overriding effect on 13(2)-Burden to prove availability of ground is on 
landlord while to prove comparative hardship is on the tenant-Evidence Act, D 
1872--Section 101. 
Appellant-landlord let out first floor of a building to the respondent-
tenant for residential purpose and one portion of the ground floor for non-
residential purpose. In the premises of ground floor, the tenant was 
running a shop and using one portion as godown for storing waste E 
material. 
Landlord filed petition for eviction of the tenancy premises on the 
ground of bonafide requirement for occupation by himself and his family 
in the residential portion and for business of his two sons in the non-
F 
residential portion and on other grounds. Trial Court rejected the petition 
on all the grounds. Appellate court held that t.he bona fide requirement of 
the landlord was made out for the premises, residential as well as non-
residential. Court allowed the eviction in respect of residential portion 
holding that comparative hardship would be greater to the landlord. 
However, it denied eviction in respect of non-residential portion holding G 
that comparative hardship would be greater to the tenant. In the writ 
petitions filed by both landlord and tenant, High Court refused to interfere 
with the order of Appellate Court. It held that landlord failed to prove 
comparative hardship with regard to non-residential portion. 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R . 
. A 
In appeal to this Court landlord contended that eviction order should 
have been passed even in respect of the non-residential portion; that the 
burden to prove comparative hardship which lay on the tenant had been 
wrongly cast on the landlord; and that High Court failed to examine 
whether partial eviction from the premises could have been ordered .. 
· B 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
. 
· .. 
HELD: 1.1. In spite of a ground for eviction u/s 13(l)(g) of Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 hav-ing been 
made out, the Court may deny the relief of eviction if tlie issue as to 
C comparative hardship is answered against the landlord and in favour of 
the tenant. Thus in a way, Section 13(2) acts as a proviso to Section 
13(1)(g); the former having an overriding effect on the latter. The burden 
of proving availability of ground for eviction under Section 13(l)(g) lies 
ori the landlord; the burden of proving greater hardship so as to deprive 
the landlord of his established right to seek eviction lies on the tenant. 
D 
[335-E, F) 
1.2. Section 13(2) falls more appropriately within the domain of 
equitable or social justice. Section 13(2) obliges the Court, in spite of the 
finding as to reasonable and genuine requirement having beeri arrived at 
in favour of the landlord, to weigh in scales placing the hardship which 
· E would result to the landlord .in case of denial of eviction in one balance 
pan and the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant in case of his being 
evicted in the other and then find out judiciously which way the balance 
tifts. An empty truism cannot be hardship. A failure of the landlord to 
make out a case for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) is not a hardship to 
F landlord; so also on a case for eviction under Section 13(l)(g) having been 
made out the fact that the tenant will be liable to be evicted is not by itself 
hardship to tenant. A mere wish or desire of the lantllord to acquire 
possession over the tenancy premises cannot be said to be a bona fide and 
reasonable requirement. Requirement implies an element of necessity. The 
necessity is a necessity without regard to the degree of which it may be. 
G For the purpose of Section 13(2) the degree of urgency or the intensity of 
felt-need assumes significance. It is a judicious process of finding out, as 
far as practi~able, and then making a comparative measure of the two 
degrees, which is involved in arriving at a finding on comparative 
har

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.