D. N. SANGHAVI & SONS versus AMBALAL TRIBHUWAN DAS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 09-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. DWIVEDI, P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ll 
D. N. SANGHA YI & SONS 
v. 
AMBALAL TRIBHUWAN DAS 
January 9, 1974 
(S. N. DWIVEDI AND P. K. GoswAMl, JJ.] 
55 
Madfr.ya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961, Sec. 12 (l) (f)-fts scope 
-The expression, 'His business'-Meaning of. 
The ·respondent is the oWner of the suit pz:emiscs. The appellarits 2 to 4 are 
carrying on the business in the name of the first appellant, D. N. Sangha vi & Sons. 
They are tenants of the apondent and using a part of the premises as their resi· 
dence. The respondent sued the appellant for eviction on the ground that he needed 
the accommodation for continuing "his busines.s" within the meaning of S.12 (1) 
(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961, The questions for 
decision in the case are as follows :-{i) What is the meaning of the phrase "his 
business" in s.12 (1) (0 and (ii) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the busi-
ness for which he required the accommodation could be said to be "his busines.s." 
The first question arose because he wanted the accommodation for continuing the 
business of a partnership firm of which he was one partner and the other two part-
ners were his brothers. 
The Trial Court held against the respondent and dismissed the suit, but the 
appeal court reversed the judgrgent and deCreed the suit for ejectment of the appel-
lants. On appea~ the High Court upheld the jud11ment of the appeal Court and 
Jicnce the appeal before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) The meaning of the expression "his business'' in s. 12 (1) (f) or the 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961, is to be determined by examin-
ing the object o~the Act and the setting of the phrase "'his business." 
(2) The diroct and immediate object of the Act is to ensure o::cupation of accomo-
dation b~ them who are in need of it. Broadly speaking, a construction which ful· 
fils this purpose should be preferred to the alternate construction which frustrates 
iL 
(3) A review of the provisions of the Act would show that the Act is more 
strict with respect to the eviction of a tenant from a non--rcsidential accomn.JJation 
than from a residential accommodation. The landlord cannot sue for eviction of 
a tenant from a non·residential accommodation where he needs it for continuing 
or Startin~ his major married daughter's business or his brother'i business. There--
fore, section 12 (1) (b) is protective of the tenant and should not receive a wide 
construction as to the class of persons who may ho included in the possessive pro-
noun 'his' in the· phrase 'his business', for it would be against legislative policy. 
(4) The words "for the purpose of continuing or starting his business" in Sec,, 
12 (i) (0 should be amplified to read as "for the purpose of his own occupation by 
way of continuing or starting his busi~". This amplification is necessarily 
implied. 
Tlie~ore, it is necmary for the respondent to prove that the accommoda· 
tion is nctedcd directly and substantially for his occupation for the purpa,e of con· 
tinuing · or starting his business. From the evidence, it is not clear whether the res. 
pondcnt was merely a sleeping partner or an active partner. In absence of any 
proof that the accommodation is exclusively required directly and substantially for 
his occupation for the purpose of continuing or starting his business, the suit 
must fail. 
J14jniklal and Co. v. Ylthal Pandurang Kawade and anoth<r, A. I. R. 1952 Nag-
pur 312· Tansuklulas Ch/uJgan"1/ v. Smt. Shamba/, A. I. R. 1954 Na11pur 160, Com-
mlssio_;, of Income-tax, West Bonga/ v. A. W. Fizgies and Co., 
(1954] S.C.R. 
. ~-. 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 19741 3 $.C.R. 
171 
Dulichand 
Lakshminarayan v. The Commissioner of Income~ta.x, Nagpur, 
U956] S.C.R. 154, Karasandas Ramji v. Karsanji Ka/yanji, A.LR. 1953 Saurashtra 
113 and Gunda!apa//i Rangamannar Chetty v. Desu Rnngiah, A. I. R. 1954 Madras 
182, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLHE JUR!SD!Cf!O~ : Civil App:al No. 1643 of 1967 
App,al by sp!chl leave from the judgment and order dated 4th 
September, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (lndore Bench) 
at Indore in s,cond App!al No. 288 of 1967. 
M .. V. Phad/<e md A. G. Ratnap:irklzi, for the appellants. 
/J. V. Patel A. T. M. Sampatlz, M. M. L. Srivastava and £. C. 
Agarwa!a, for'the respondent. 
lh~ J1J;n,:it·or th! Court was delivered by 
DIVIVEDI, J. -Th: facts of this case fall within a short compass. 
The respondent, Amba Lal Tribhuwan-Oas, is the owner of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.