BAPUBHAI MOHANBHAI versus MAHILA SAHAKARI UDYOG MANDIR

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 26-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
BAPUBHAI MOHANBHAI 
". 
•MAHILA SAHAKARI UDYOG MANDIR 
August 26, 1975 
4H 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW AND Y. V. CHANDRACO:HUD, JJ.J 
Bon1bay, Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVJJ of 
1947-S. 13, 25,-Scope of. 
Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
Act, LVII of 1947 (which was the Act in force in Gujarat) enumerates the 
grounds on which a landlord 
may obtain possession of' the premises let out 
to a tenant. 
Clause (g) of that section provides that the landlord can obtain 
possession on~y if he satisfies the Court that the premises are reasonably and 
bona fide required for occupation by himself. 
Section 25 provides that a 
landlord cannot use nor can he permit to be used for 
a 
non-residential 
purpose any premises which, on the date when the Act came into· force, were 
used for a residential purpose. 
Sub-sectioii (2) of this Section makes con~ 
travention of the provisions of sub-s.( I) punishable w-ith imprisonment. 
On the date on which the Act came into operation, the premises 
in 
dispute belonging to the respondent were used for residential purposes. The 
respondent sought possession on the ground that it wanted them for its office,. 
for running a fafr price shop, for establishing a godown, for conducting a 
tailoring and sewing class and. such other purposes. 
The trial court and the 
first appellate court found that the 
respondent needed the 
premises for 
its 
business; but disn1issed the suits on the ground that in view of the provisions 
of s. 25 of the Act the requirement could not be said to be· reasonable and 
bdna fide. 
The High Court, while accepting that the premises were required 
by the respondent for its business, took the view that since the legislature 
did not subject the right conferred on the landlord by s.13 ( 1) to .any other 
provision save the one contained in s.15. s.25 cannot be permitted to over-
ride s.13(1). 
A1lowing the appeal, 
HELD : Though the respondent required the premises for the purposes of 
its bt1siness, no 4ecrce for possession could be passed in its favour as 
its 
requirement could not be said to be reasonable. Th-e reguirement runs acro:s'.'t 
the statutory vrohibition and is, therefore, not reasonabl"e. 
[415-E] 
(1) Under s.13(1)(g) it is not sufficient for a landlord to establish that 
the .premises were requires;l by him but it has to ~e shown further that the 
requirement is reasonable and boi1a fide. 
The requtrement of the respondent 
iii the instant case could not be called reasonable if the very statute under 
which it seeks relief contains an injunction that it shall not use residential 
premises for a non-residential purpose. 
Not only does the statute contoiiri an 
injunction against the user of residential premises• for a non-residential pur-
pose but it makes it penal for a landlo~d to use for a non-residential purpose 
any pr_emises which were used for a residential purpose on the date when the 
Act came into f9rce. 
[414C·E] 
(2) (a) The approach of the High Court is misconceived. The true ques· 
tion for consideration is not whether as between s.13(1) and s.25(1), one 
over-rides the other, and indeed, in view of the wording of the non-obstane 
clause of s.13(1), the provisions of that section must have priority over the 
rest of the Act except for what is contained in s.15. 
But conceding to s.13(1) 
its riditful p~cedence and granting that it stands .supreme except ff:!r s.15. 
according to its own terms the Court bas to be satisfied that the ~quirement 
of' the landlord is reasonable. [4J5A-B] 
(b) If the respondent fails it is not because s.25 overrides s.13(1) but 
because of its failure to prove the reasonableness of its requirement. Whether 
the requirement of the landlord is reasonable or not is to be judged from all 
the facts and circumstances of the case and a truly relevant circumstance 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
.bearing on the reasonableness of the landlord's requiren1ent is that the purpose 
A 
for which the possession waS sought was a purpose for which the premises 
.-could not be used save on pain oi' penal consequences. 
[415-Cl:!,l 
J 
(3) Courts sought not to cons.true a statute in a manner which will encout-
. age the· brea_ch of any of its provisions and a de_cree ought not to be passed· 
which, ii' honoured, will attract penal consequences. 
To pass a decree in favour 
of the respondent on the grounds accepted by the Hig

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