BEGA BEGUM AND ORS. versus ABDUL AHAD KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
BEGA BEGUM AND ORS. 
v. 
ABDUL AHAD KHAN AND ORS. 
October 6, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
lammu nnd Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, Section 
11(h)-Meuning of the words '{reasonable requirement" and "own occupation" 
in Section 11 ('1 )-Balance of convenience in cases of eviction, explatned-
ConstitutlDn of India, 1950, Art. 136, interference by Supreme Court with con-
current findings of Courts below. 
The appeJJants-plaintiffs sought the eviction of the respondents-defendants 
fro::n the suit premises which was leased to the latter for a period of ten years 
only and for running a hotel, on the grounds (a) of personal :rnquirement to 
run a hotel business themselves and (b) of the failure of the res pendents to 
deliver possession after the expiry of the period of lease despite notices issued. 
The Trial Court and t.1-e High Court in appeal having dismissed the suit, the ap-
pellants 9btaine.d special leave of this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
EIELD : 1. The Jammu and Kashniir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 
1966 is a piece of social legislation aimed at easing the problem of accommoda-
tion. protecting the tenants from evictions inspired by profit hunting motives 
and providing certain safeguards for the tenants and saving them from great 
expense, inconvenience and trouble. 
But the Act does not completely overlook 
the interest of the landlord and has under certain conditions granted a clear 
right to the landlord to seek eviction on proof of the grounds mentioned in 
section 11 of the Act. 
Thus, the Act appears to have· struck a just balance 
between the genuine need of the· landlord on the one hand and great inconvenience 
and trouble which may be caused· to the tenants on the other. In the instant 
.case, the defendants had taken the property on lease only for a period of 10 
years and now they have been in prossession of the same for over 30 years. 
If ihe plaintiffs found that their present business had become dull .and was not 
yieJding s11fl1cil'nt income to maintain themselves, aild therefor:e, it \vas necessary 
to occupy the house so as to run a hotel business, it cannot by any stretch of 
imagination be said that the plaintiffs had merely a desire rather than a bonafide 
need for cvicttng the tenants. 
The findings of the High Court that the plain· 
tiffs had not pro·:ed that they had a bonafide need for occupation of the building 
in dispute is incorrect. [7E-H, SA] 
2. Section 11 (h) of the Act uses the words 'rev.nnable requirement' 'vhich 
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a 
mere desire o:· wish. The distinction between desirei and need should doubtless 
be kept in r:iind but not so as to make even the genuine need ll'!l nothing but 
A 
.I 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
a desire as the High Court has done in this case. The connotation of the term 
'need' or 'requirement' should not be artificially extended nor its language so 
H 
unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the 
landlord ·to get a de~ree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very pur-
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
pose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the land-
lord on certain specified grounds. This is the general scheme of all the Rent Con-
trol Acts, prevalent in other States in the country. 
The word "requirement'~ 
merely connotes that there should be an element of need. In such cases the main 
test should be \vhether it was necessary for the landlords to need the premises 
for their own use or occupation. [8A-D, F] 
8 
In the instant case, the pl&intiffs had proved that the requirement for the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
house for starting a hotel business was both genuine and reasonable and even 
imperative, bee.a.use the scanty income of the plaintiffs was not sufficiert to 
maintain them or to afford them a decent or comfortable living. [9A-B] 
Phiroze Ra1nanji Desai v. Chandrakant N. Patel and Ors [1974] 1 SCC 661; 
applied. 
B. Baliah v. Chandoor Lachaiah, A.LR. 1965 A.P. 435 (D.B.) approved. 
3. The \\C.rds "own occupation" in S. 11 (h) cannot be so narrow~y htter-
preted as to indicate actual physical possession of the landlord personally and 
nothing sho1t of that. The provision in S. 11 (h) of the Act is meant for the 
benefit of the landlord and, therefore, it must be so construed as to advance 
the object of the Act. 
The word 'occupation' does n

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