BHAICHAND RATANSHI versus LAXMISHANKER TRIBHOYAN

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 29-07-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

153 
iBHAICHAND_ RATANSHI 
v. 
LAXMISHANKER TRIBHOYAN 
July 29, 1981 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947-Section 
!3(l)(g) and" 13(2)-Scope of-Comparative hardship-Tests for 
deciding-
Revisional jurisdition of the High Court under the Act limited. 
In his suit under section 13(I)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1947 seeking the eviction of the respondent-defendant 
from the suit premises, the plaintiff-appellant claimed that after having been 
displaced from Uganda on account of political upheaval in that country he 
intended to settle down in his native town and that therefore, he reasonably and 
bona.fide required the suit premises under the defendant's occupation for setting 
up his business. 
In replication the defendant claimed that he, a man of slender means, had 
built up his goodwill by running a business from th~ premises over the years and 
his eviction from the premises would put greater hardship on him than on the 
plaintiff. In support of his case he pleaded that sect ion 13(2) of the Act makes 
it incumbent on the Court to refrain fro1n passing an order of eviction under 
section 13(1)(g) if it is satisfied that it causes greater hardship to the tenant than 
to the landlord. 
The court of first instance, and in appeal the District Judge, negatived the 
defendant's claim of comparative hardship to him because the defendant himself 
was not in actual possession of the premises but had in fact inducted another 
pe:rson who had his own business elsewhere in the town but used the suit premises 
as a mere godown. 
On appeal the High Court declined to pass an order of eviction under 
section 13(I)(g). It held that the defendant, who in his old age was receiving 
some maintenance from the licensee for the use of the premises, would be depriv-
ed of his only source of live! ihood were he evicted from the premises and that 
secondly the fact that the plaintiff had gone back to Uganda showed that he was 
not sure whether to settle down in India or go back to Uganda. 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : Section 13(2) seeks to strike a just balance between the landlord 
and tenant. In considering the question of greater hardship the Court would 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
have to take into account the circumstances which would tilt the balance of hard~ 
H 
ship either \Vay. The exi..;tence of alternative accommodation on both sides 
is an important t.hough not a decisive factor. 
On the terms of section 13(2) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982] I S.C.R. 
the question whether or not there would be greater hardship to the tenant by 
passing the decree cannot turn on mere burden of proof but the parties must 
lead evidence. [157 A·D] 
The High Court erred in non-suiting the plaintiff. There is enough evidence 
to show that he came from Uganda as a result of political upheaval in that coun-
try, that he had considerable business experince in that country and that he had 
the requisite wherewithal to carry on business. In contrast the defendant was not in 
actual possession of the suit premises but had given possession of the premises to 
another person who had a separate shop of his own, who only used the premises 
as his godown. The mere circumstance that the defendant was aged and infirm 
and that the licensee paid him some amount regularly would not imply that a 
decree under section 13(1)(g) would cause greater hardship to the defendant. 
Section 13(2) would have been relevant had the defendant himself been in posses· 
sion of the premises. In any event the defendant having died the question of 
greater hardship to him under section 13(2) would not arise. [158 A-Fl 
Although the jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under the Act is 
wider than its jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. its revisional jurisdiction 
under the Act could only be exercised for the limited purpose of satisfying itself 
that the decision of the Courts below was according to law. So long as the finding 
of the Courts below was not perverse or erroneous the High Court cannot, on a 
reappraisal of the evidence, substitute its own finding for the one reached by the 
Courts below. [157 E-F] 
In dealing with the question of comparative hardship the Court is only 
concerned with the hardship of the landlord and the tenant but not of a complete 
stranger. [156 F-G] 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
of 1971 
Civil Appeal N

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