JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAM versus M/S. BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB. INDIA LTD.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 30-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAM 
v. 
MIS. BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB. INDIA LTD. 
OCTOBER 30, 2001 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Ktirnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : 
S. 21( 1 )(h)-Landlord holding undivided share in building-Eviction of 
C 
tenant sought on ground of bona fide requirement-Rent Controller ordering 
eviction-High Court allowing revision of tenant holding that the building 
being a huge one landlord's claim that he cannot pursue his professional 
activities in the premises was not substantiated-Held, being in occupation of 
a portion of a building and holding a fractional undivided share therein is no 
bar to invoke provision of s.21( l)(h)-Order of High Court set aside and that 
D 
of Rent Controller restored. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5997of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.99 of the Karnataka High 
Court in H.R.R.P.No. 1256 of 1995. 
M.S. Ganesh, S. Muralidhar and S. Vallinayagam for the appellant. 
L. Nageshwar Rao, P.S. Sudheer, Jayanth Muth Raj, for K.K. John & Co. 
for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
This appeal brings under challenge the validity of the order of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in H.R.R.P. No. 1256 of 1995 on February 
22, 1999 allowing the revision filed by the respondent (respondents 1 to 3 are 
avatars of the same company and are referred to as, 'the respondent') and 
dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant. 
The appellant is the landlord of premises being number No. 12/1, Prim-
rose Road, Bangalore (for short, 'the premises') of which the respondent is 
tenan't on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800. The appellant filed eviction petition 
H 
seeking eviction of the respondent on two grounds but only one ground under 
590 
( 
... 
JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAM v. BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB. INDIA LTD. · 591 
Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') 
A 
survives-he reasonably and bona .fide requires accommodation for his personal 
occupation, both for residence as well as for professional requirements. The 
respondent contested the petition denying the personal requirement of the 
appellant and taking the plea that the house in occupation of the appellant being 
a big house has. enough accommodation for his residence and his professional 
B 
activities. 
On considering the evidence placed on record, the learned Rent Controb 
ler found that a case under Section 2l(l)(h) was made out and ordered eviction 
of the respondent on July 5, 1995. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned 
Rent Controller, the respondent filed revision before the High Court which was c 
allowed by the impugned order. It is against that order that the appellant is in 
appeal before us, by special leave. 
Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has contended 
that the appellant initiated proceedings for eviction of the respondent during 
D 
the life time of his father and it had become impossible for him to get along 
with his step mother; the ground of bona .fide requirement was established and 
the trial court gave effect to it but the High Court reversed the findings of fact 
recorded by the trial court which is unsustainable in law. 
Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondent, argues 
.• 
that after the death of his father the house in occupation of the appellant is 
E 
available to him both for personal as well as professional requirements and, 
therefore, it can not be said that he reasonably and bona .fide requires the 
premises for his personal occupation. As the Rent Controller did not correctly 
appreciate the facts, the High Court on a proper consideration of the material 
placed before it reversed the findings taking the view that the need was not 
F 
bona .fide and this Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution, would not 
disturb such findings. 
The only question that arises for consideration is : whether the appellant · 
has proved reaso~able and bona .fide requirement of the premises to warrant 
G 
eviction of the respondent under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of 
--\-
the Act. 
The facts are not in dispute. The premises in question belongs to the 
appellant and that he let it out to the respondent sometime in 1976 on a monthly 
rent of Rs. 1300 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1800 per month. The 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
appellant, finding it difficult t

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