HAMEEDIA HARDWARE STORES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER S. PEER MOHAMMED versus B. MOHAN LAL SOWCAR

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 29-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HAMEEDIA HARDWARE STORES, REPRESENTED BY ITS 
PARTNER S. PEER MOHAMMED 
v. 
B. MOHAN LAL SOWCAR 
MARCH 29, 1988 
[E.S. !YENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
~ 
Tamil Nadu Buildings- (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-
Whether it is necessary for a landlord who institutes a petition under 
section 10 (3)(a)(iii) thereof to establish that his requirements is bona 
fide or not. 
The respondent's brother was carrying on his bnslness In the 
front portion of the ground floor of the premises In question, which 
belonged to the father of the respondent. The appellant purchased the 
said- running business from the brother or the respondent. After 
purchasing the bnsiness, the appellant became a tenant under the 
father of the respondent. In the rear portion of the ground floor of the 
premises, one Mrs. Janaki Ammal was residing as a tenant. Mrs. 
Janaki Amm~I vacated the said residential portion and the appellant 
took that portion also on rent from the father of the respondent. The 
ownership of the premises In question was transferred in favour of the 
respondent by his father. On 9.6.1982, an agreement was entered into 
in respect of both the portions specifying that the lease should remain In 
force till 8.5.11983. After the expiry of the said period, the respondent 
instituted a petition for eviction or the appellant In the Court of the 
Controller under section 10(3)(a)(lii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that the premises in 
question were needed by his wife for carrying on her bnsiness which she 
was carrylng'on somewhere else. The appellant contended inter alia that 
the requirement of the wife of the respondent was not bona fide. The 
Controller dismissed the petition, holding that the tenancy in question 
was in respect of both the residential and non-residential portions and 
the respond~nts could not seek eviction of the appellant as the major 
portion of the demised premises was of residential character. Aggrieved 
by the decision of the Controller, the respondent preferred an appeal 
before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the 
appeal. The respondent f'lled a revision petition before the High Court. 
The High Court allowed the revision petition holding that it was not 
necessary for the respondent to establish that his requirement was bona 
fide as the question of the bonafides ofa landlord's requirement did not 
384 
·~. 
HAMEEDIA HARDWARE v. B.M.L. SOWCAR 
385 
arise in a case under section IO (3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It, however, held 
the claim of the respondent to be bona fide. Aggrieved by the decision of 
the High Court, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court for 
relief by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
• 
HELD: The crucial question which arose for consideration in this 
case was whether a landlord, who sought eviction of a tenant from a 
non-residential building (other than a non-residential building used for 
keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use) under section JO OHa)(iii) of 
the Tamil.Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (the Act) 
was required to prove that he required the said building for his own use 
or for the use of any member of his family bona fide. [390C-D I 
The Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to 
the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential buildings 
A 
B 
c 
and the control of the rents of such buildings and the prevention of 
unreasonable eviction of the tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil 
D 
Nadu. The Act is an ameliorating piece of legislation. Similar Acts are 
in force in almost all the States in India. The provision in question-section 
11l(3)(a)(iii)-has to be examined against this background. [3900; 392G r · 
Having regard to the pattern in which clause (a) of sub-section (3) 
of section IO of the Act is enacted and also the context, the words "if the 
E 
landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his 
family", found in sub-clause (ii) of section IO (3)(a) of the Act, have to 
be read also into sub-clause (iii) of section JO (3)(a) of the Act. Sub· 
clauses (ii) and (iii) both deal with the non-residential buildings. They 
could have been enacted as one sub-clause by adding a conjunction 
'and' between the said two sub-clauses, in which event the clause wonld 
F 
have read thus: 'in case it is a non-residential building which is used for 
the purpose of keeping 

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