BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANR. versus KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 30-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1105 : 2024 INSC 71
Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Anr. 
v. 
 Khatija Ismail Panhalkar and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 2016)
30 January 2024
[Aniruddha Bose* and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellants-landlords purchased the subject-premises in the 
year 1992 from its erstwhile owner. Both the tenants were inducted 
by the erstwhile owner of the building in question. On 23.01.2002, a 
demolition notice was issued by the Municipal Council. Thereafter, 
the notices for eviction were subsequently sent to the tenants, 
on the various grounds including municipality’s demolition notice 
and bonafide requirement of landlord. In the present appeals, the 
appellants are assailing a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of 
the High Court on 04.08.2015 exercising his revisional jurisdiction 
invalidating eviction decrees against two tenants in respect of two 
portions of the same building.
Headnotes
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – ss. 15 and 16 – The Trial 
Court opined that the landlord was the best judge of his own 
requirement and on that basis the issue of bona fide need was 
decided in favour of the appellants-landlords – The Appellate 
Court sustained the judgment and decree on the ground of 
bona fide need as also necessity to effect demolition of the 
subject-building – The Revisional Court on analysing the 
provisions of ss. 15 and 16 of the said statute set aside the 
judgment and decree and allowed the revision applications 
of the tenants – Propriety:
Held: The High Court correctly held that there was no satisfaction 
in the manner contemplated in s.16 (2) of the 1999 Act as far as 
bona fide need in terms of s.16(1)(g) was concerned – In the 
impugned judgment, the High Court has dealt with in detail the list 
of properties which were with the landlords and on that basis gave 
its own finding in that regard, there is no perversity in such view 
taken by the High Court – Sub-section (6) of s.16 also mandates 
satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) 
thereof – Subclause (d) in particular, contemplates the landlord to 
1106
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
give undertaking in terms of paragraphs (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of that 
subclause, while dealing with landlord’s eviction claim based on 
s.16(1)(i) of the said statute – These are all mandatory requirements 
and one cannot find any flaw with the judgment of the High Court 
to the extent it rejects the claim of the landlord for non-compliance 
of the aforesaid provisions – As far as demolition notice by the 
Municipal Authority is concerned, section 16(1)(k) of the said Act 
permits recovery of possession of tenanted premises on the ground 
that the premises are required for immediate purpose of demolition 
ordered by any municipal or other competent authority – The Court 
trying an eviction proceeding under the aforesaid provision has 
very limited role in determining as to whether demolition is really 
necessary or not, but it does not automatically follow therefrom 
that the Court would mechanically adopt the view of municipal 
authority of there being urgent need of demolition – The conditions 
under which a landlord can bring an eviction action under clauses 
(i) and (k) of s.16(1) are different in their operations – In respect 
of an eviction proceeding founded on the former provision, it 
contemplates a lesser degree of immediacy or urgency – But the 
latter provision requires a greater degree of urgency and it is within 
the jurisdiction of the Court to test this factor, as held in the cases 
of M.L. Sonvane and Manohar P. Rampal – Both the fact finding 
fora failed on this count – The Revisional Court has fitted the facts 
with the legal provisions and found that there was mismatch on 
the basis of which the judgment and decree were set aside – The 
Judgment of the Revisional Court needs no re-appreciation. [Paras 
11, 12, 13, 16, 18]
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – s.16(1)(h) and (i) – 
Principle of “comparative hardship” – Tenancy Jurisprudence:
Held: In the instant case, dealing with claim based on s.16(1)
(h) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Act, the 
statutory mandate for the Court is to test the question of part 
vacating – Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court chose to 
analyse this requirement before directing eviction – This provision 
becomes relevant as the initial demolition notice identifies a part of 
the premises requi

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