LexDATTATRAYA LAXMAN KAMBLE versus ABDUL RASUL MOULIALI KOTKUNE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DATTATRAYA LAXMAN KAMBLE v. i ABDUL RASUL MOULIALI KOTKUNE AND ANR. APRIL 28, 1999. B [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Rent Control And Eviction Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947- . C Section 13 (I) (g)-Bona fide requirement-Eviction of tenant-Landlord requiring premises for starting electrical business-He had diploma but had no experience-Trial Court did not order eviction--Appellate Court evicted tenant as it found the ground substantiated-High Court held, possessing a diploma is not enough, experience is needed-On appeal held, High Court D committed jurisdictional error in interfering with finding of fact on an individual view-Order of Appellate Court, upheld. E F Provision couched in negative language to provide emphasis to genuineness of requirement-Requirement to be bona fide needs to be reasonable also-Must be genuine from any reasonable standard. Bona fide requirement-Court to be satisfied-Landlord to prove need but no warrant to presume contrary-Undisputed claim by landlord- Independent analysis to be done-However landlords' burden may get reduced. Bona fide requirement-Landlord starting new business-Having no past experience but academically qualified-Held, does not reflect lack of bona fides-Sufficient know-how not a pre-condition. Words and Phrases- G "Bona fide requirement "-Meaning of in the context of-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellant-landlord was the owner of a shop room, the tenanted premises. He desired to commence a business in electrical goods and had stated that he had obtained a diploma in Electrical Engineering, and had the H requisite know-how. He had instituted eviction proceedings against the 912 - - D.L. KAMBLE v AL. MAULIALI KOTKUN£ 913 respondent-tenant. The trial court did not order eviction however the appellate A ·court evicted the tenant as it found the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 substantiated. The respondent-tenant filed a writ petition before the High Court, against the order of eviction. The High Court held that the appellant-landlord B has failed to prove that he has the know-how required to start the said business and bona fides of the claim were not proved. The order of eviction was set aside. Aggrieved the appellant-landlord appealed to this Court contending C that the High Court held an erroneous view as regards requirements of starting a business; and that the High Court had ventured beyond its jurisdiction in upsetting a finding of fact entered by the fact-finding court. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The grounds mentioned in clause (g) of Section 13(1) of the Bombay Rent Control Act is couched in such a language to provide emphasis to the genuineness of the requirement by using the words "reasonably and bona fide required by the land lord". Both the terms (reasonable and bona fide) are complimentary to each other, as any unreasonable requirement is D not bona fide. If the requirement has to be bona fide it must necessarily be E reasonable also. The message to be gathered from these two terms used by the legislature is that the requirement must be really genuine from any reasonable standard. The genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on par with the dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. [915-H; 916-A-B] 2. The landlord has to prove his need but there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bona fide. The broad aspects should be looked into for satisfying the bonafides of the requirement. If there is any doubt, F it is for the landlord to clear them. In the case of an undisputed claim of bona fide requirement an independent analysis has to be made; however this may G reduce the landlord's burden. In an appropriate case, the requirement may be presumed to be bona fide putting the burden over the tenant to prove the contrary. [916-C-D) 3. It would be a fallacious and unpragmatic approach that any venture in business without acquiring past experience reflects lack of bonafides as H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R. A the same can be earned even while the business is in progress. It is too - , .. pedantic a norm to be formulated that "no experience no venture". (917-C-DJ 4. The High Court committed a jurisdictional error while upsetting a fact finding merely
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.