DWARKAPRASAD versus NIRANJAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DWARKAPRASAD 
v. 
NIRANJAN AND ANR. 
MARCH 4, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-
C Section 13(J)(g)-Suitfor eviction on the ground ofbonafide requirement-
For establishment of busines.:: of son and brothers-Plaintiff and all his brothers 
and sisters memb~rs of Joint Hindu Family-Tenanted premises let out by 
joint family-Suit decreed by trial court and lower appellate court-High 
Court decreed the suit only in respect of bonafide requirement for son-
D Rejection ofbonafide requirement of brothers on thi ground that they did not 
have proprietary interest in the property-On appeal, held: Since it is 
established that the plaintiff constitutes a joint family and held property for 
benefit of entire family, the tenants are liable to be evicted as bonafide 
requirement of the brothers of plaintiff is established 
E 
Section 13(J}(g)-1nterpretation of-Held, it should be liberally 
construed-Confining it to the landlord alone and not to his family will defeat 
the object of the provision-The term ''lamily" must be construed so as to 
include near relations of the head of the family. 
Interpretation of statutes-A beneficial provision must be meaningfully 
F construed so as to advance the object of the Act. 
G 
Words and phrases: 
'Himself' and 'Family'-Meaning of in the context of Section 13(1){g) 
of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
Plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction against respondent-tenant 
on ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide need of the premises 
for establishment of new business of his younger brothers and his son. The 
landlord-appellant was karta of the Joint Hindu Family consisting of his 
H brothers, sisters and mother. The lease deed with respect to the tenancy 
580 
·--
DW ARKAPRASAD v. NIRANJAN 
581 
was executed by all the family members of the plaintiff and the property A 
was let out for meeting the financial requirements of Joint Hindu Family. 
During trial plaintiff had deposed that he and his brothers were members 
of the joint family. Trial court decreed the suit on both grounds and lower 
appellate Court rejected the ground regarding default in payment of rent 
but maintained the decree on the ground of bonajide requirement. High 
Court accepted need for establishment of the son but rejected the need of B 
the brothers on the ground that requirement of brothers could not be 
considered as they did not have any proprietary interest in the property 
and thus partly affirmed the decree. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that word 'himselr C 
occurring in Section 13(l)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates (Control) Act, 1947 has to be liberally construed so as to include 
the requirement of the family members of the plaintiff and the same cannot 
be confined to the plaintiff alone. 
Respondent-tenant contended that need of the brothers cannot be D 
taken into consideration in view of the fact that property was owned by 
the landlord exclusively. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Normally, rent legislations are meant for the benefit of E 
the tenants but the rent statutes contain exceptions in favour of the 
landlord which give him a right to evict the tenant, the most important 
being to ensure that he gets payment of rent regularly and promptly and 
that in case the tenanted premises is required by him for his personal need, 
he is able to get its possession from the tenant. So the provision regarding 
eviction of tenant to meet the personal requirement of the landlord with F 
respect to the premises is a provision for the benefit of the lan.dlord. 
(587-C-D] 
2. In the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded right from the 
beginning that he constitutes a joint family with his mother, brothers and G 
sisters. It is also in evidence that the plaintiff holds the property for the 
benefit of the entire family. Even when the plaintiff is sole owner of the 
property, it is open to him to use the property for the benefit of his larger 
family which includes his brothers and sisters. The respondent-tenant 
cannot dispute the fact about the plaintifrs constituting a joint family 
because it is specifically provided in the lease deed which is an admitted H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A document. Moreover, the defendant had not led any evidence to contradict 
or dispute this plea. 1587-E-Fl 
3. The ground 

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