DR. M. K. SALPEKAR versus SUNIL KUMAR SHAMSUNDER CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 10-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. M. K. SALPEKAR 
v. 
SUNIL KUMAR SHAMSUNDER CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS 
AUGUST 10, 1988 
A 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, J.) 
B 
C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949: 
Clause 13(3)(v )-Whether confined to only residential houses. 
The respondent-landlords submitted two separate applications 
before the Rent Controller for permission to determine the tenancy of C 
the appellant-tenant from their portions of the premises on the ground 
that the tenant had built -a large house in the city and had thus secured 
alternative accommodation. The Rent Controller allowed the prayer. A 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition 
and his Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. 
Before this Court the appellant's main contention was that the 
provisions of clanse 13(3)(v) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and 
Rent Control Order, 1949 did not apply to non-residential buildings. 
The argument was that by the addition of the Explanation to clause 
13(3)(v), non-residential buildings have been, excluded from the 
purview of the sub-clause. 
Dismissing the appeals it was, 
HELD: (1) It cannot be reasonably suggested that by the addition 
D 
E 
of the Explanation, which is confined to cases dealing with residential 
buildings, a non-residential building is excluded even where the tenant 
F 
leaves the area for a period of four months and does not need the 
house. [342G-H) 
If the position in regard to the second category of cases remained 
unaffected, the Explanation cannot be construed to narrow down the 
scope of the first category of cases where the tenant secures alternative 
G 
accommodation. [342H; 343A) 
(2) It is not possible to split the main sub-clause so as to apply it to 
non-residential buildings where the tenant leaves the area for four 
months and at the same time exclude it where he secures alternative 
accommodation as the sub-clause deals with the two situations in the 
H 
339 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
same language without making any distinction. [343A-B] 
(3) The Explanation operates within a very narrow area and does 
not cover the entire field governed by the main sub-clause. By the use of 
the expression "shall be deemed" a legal fiction has been employed for 
the purpose of including a particular situation within the sweep of the 
B sub-clause. [343Dl 
( 4) It cannot be legitimately suggested that since in the majority 
of other States, similar provisions in the statutes on rent law are limited 
in operation to residential buildings, the same must be presumed to be 
the intention of the author of the Control Order. It is a question of 
C policy to be adopted by the different legislatures. [343G-H] 
Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, [1984] I SCC 125 referred to. 
CIVIL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
1584-1585 of 1985. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.1984 of the Bombay 
High Court in LP.A. Nos. 76 and 77 of 1984. 
V.A. Bobde, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, S.D. Mudaliar and Ms. Alanjit 
Chauhan for the Appellant. 
E 
U .R. Lalit and A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. The main question in these cases is whether sub-
clause (v) of Clause 13(3) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and 
F 
Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Control 
Order), applied to all buildings whether residential or non-residential, 
or was confined only to residential houses. 
2. The civil appeals have arisen out of two proceedings initiated 
by the owners of the disputed premis~s for the eviction of the 
G appellant-tenant on the ground that he has secured alternative accom-
modation and, therefore, does not reasonably need the house. The 
two premises are parts of the same building situate in Mahal Chowk in 
the city of Nagpur, and belong to a family of which the applicants, 
respondents before this Court, are members. The appellant-tenant Dr. 
M.K. Salpekar, who is a renowned doctor of Nagpur, has. been 
H occupying the premises as tenant for the purpose of his clinic since 
M.K. SALPEKAR v. SUNIL (SHARMA, J.] 
341 
l944. Admittedly he has built in Ramdaspeth, another part of the city, 
a large double storeyed house, and has let out portions thereof to the 
State Forest Department for running its office. On a partition amongst 
the members of the family of the owners of the Mahal Building the 
premises in possession of the appellant-tenant was allotted to the res-
ponden

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