KANDASWAMY versus BD. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.I. SAID MOSQUE

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 22-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KANDASWAMY 
v. 
Bd. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.I. SAID MOSQUE 
MARCH 22, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPA'IRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : 
Section 21( 1)(1)--Scope, object and interpretation of-Necessary condi-
tions to be established by landlord. 
Landlord-Eviction of tenant-Application by landlord-Ground-
Purpose of construction of new building-Rejection of application on the 
ground that pe1mission for erection of new building by local authority or 
competent authority was necessary-On appeal High Court set aside the order 
of trial court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held impugned order of High 
Court was not sustainable-The landlord has to plead in the eviction petition 
that the new building for construction of which he is seeking eviction of the 
tenant from the land has been approved or pennitted by a local authority or 
other competent authority-The approval or permission of a local authority or 
other competent authority forms a part of the cause of action for filing an 
application for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 21( 1)(1)-The use of the 
"' expression "has approv,d or pennitted" leaves no manner of doubt that 
such an order by a competent authority must be with the landlord on the 
date of presentation of the petition for eviction of the tenant-It may not 
be necessary for the landlord to annex a copy of the order passed by the 
local authority or competent authority but a statement to that effect has to be 
made in the petition-The bona fide purpose in insisting on an order 
approving or permitting the landlord to erect a new building on the new 
land is to extend the protection to the tenant against eviction in case the 
landlord merely wishes to construct a building but has not taken steps for 
obtaining necessary permission/approval by the local authority or other com-
petent authority concerned-The provision is also intended lo take care of the 
situation of long time lag between the filing of the petition for eviction and grant 
of approval/permission by the local authority or other competent authority 
concerned. 
Statutory Interpretation : 
677 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Statute-Interpretation of-Statute couched in clear and unambiguous • 
language-Court should give meaning to plain words of Section-External aid 
should not be taken. 
Kewal Singh v. Smt. Lajwant~ (1980] 1 SCC 290 and Dinanath and Anr. 
B 
v. Gopalkrishna (dead) by Lrs., [1990] Supp. SCC 767, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.99 of the Kamataka High 
Court in H.R.R.P. No. 5238 of 1991. 
c 
K. V. Viswanathan, Atul Kumar Sinha and K. V. Venkatararnan for the 
Appellant. 
S.K. Dholakia, Atul Y. Chitale, Rakesh Sinha and Suchitra Atul Chitale 
for the Respondent. 
.. 
D 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted. 
The decision in this appeal rests on the interpretation of Sec. 2l(l)(i) 
of the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
w 
E 
The question to be considered is whether approval or permission of the local 
)' 
authority or other competent authority for erection of a new building is a 
condition precedent for filing an application by the landlord for eviction of 
the tenant under the said provision. 
Being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 6th August, 1999 of the 
F 
High Court of Kamataka in House Rent Revision Petition (HRRP) No. 5238/ 
91 the tenant filed this appeal by special leave assailing the said judgment/ 
+ 
order. The respondent, Board of Management, Haji Sri Ismail Said Mosque, 
represented by its Secretary, is the landlord of the premises in question which 
is a piece of vacant land bearing site No. 60 in the city of Bangalore The 
G 
landlord sought eviction of the tenant on several grounds including the 
ground under Sec. 2l(l)(i) which provides for eviction of a tenant for the 
purpose of constructing a new building. The grounds other than the one 
~ 
mentioned above are not in dispute in this proceeding. 
.., 
The !Vth Additional Judge of Small Causes ('the trial court' for short) 
H 
by the order dated 10th February, 1989, allowed the petition for eviction. On 
KANDASWAMY '· Bd. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.l. SAID MOSQUE [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 679 
the revision petition filed by the tenant the High Court set aside the order 
A 
-.( 
of the trial court by the judgment/order dated 9.2.1990 and remanded the case 
to hi

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