LexKRISHANLAL ISHWARLAL DESAI versus BAI VIJKOR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
553
KRISHANLAL ISHWARLAL DESAI
L';
BAI VIJKOR AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH and
J. c. SHAH, .JJ.)
Rents and Ra/es Control-Recovery .of possession by land-
lord-Rea<onable and bonafide req1'irement for occupation or
construction-Failure of landlord to occupy 1l'ithin one month-
Whether tenant entitled to get possession-Bombay Rents, Hotel
and Lodginy House Rates Control Act., J[IJ7 (Bom 5i of 1947),
SS. 13 (1) (g), 13 (1) (i), 17 (1).
The appellant is the owner of a vacant plot of land of
which the respondents were the tenants. The former applied
to the-court for ejectment d the latter and for getting possession
under s. 13 (1) (g) and (e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 19+7 on the grounds that
he reasonably required the land for occupation by himself and
for erection of new buildings. The trial court found in favour
of the appellant on the first ground but rejected his claim under
the second ground. Though cross appeals were filed the appel·
late court substantially upheld the order of the court below.
Thereafter the appellant took possession about four months later
and started storing materials for sanitary works and buildings
even though at the trial his case was that he wanted the land for
storing of timber. The respondents applied under s. 17 (I) of
the Act to the trial court to obtain possession of the premises
on the ground that the appellant had failed to occupy the
premises within one inonth of his recovery of possession.
The
trial court rejected their application but the appellate court
allowed the appeal filed by them. The revision petition filed
by the appellant was summarily rejected by the High Court.
The present appeal is by way of special leave granted by this
Court.
The appellant's contention before this Court was that the
period of limitation of one month prescribed under s. 17 (I)
would be applicable to an order under s. 13 (1) (i) and not to
one passed under s. 13 ( 1) (g).
Hel.d, that s. 17 (1) makes a distinction between occupa-
tion and possession. The period of limitation of one month
1963
1963
Kris/i1J11/,,J /shu.-atlal
f)tioi
v.
Boi VijA:M
G~cnJrogcu:IAar, J.
5ti4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!l64]VOL.
applirs as much to the case of occupation ao to the caoe of erec·
tion of th~ work contemplated by cl. 13 (I) (g) and (i) respec-
tively.
Stnce the appellant did not occ.,py 1he premises within
one month he has failed to comply with the first part of s. 17
(I) and hence the rospondents are en ti I led to an order for the
p<>sM"ssion of the prcm iscs.
CIVIL APPELLATE jURISDI'-'TIO~ : Civil Appeal
No. 804 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated
April 11, 196'.!, of the Gujarat High Court in Civil
Revision Application No. 335 of 1962.
Jlf. C. Setalvad, and /. N. Shroff, for the appel·
!ant.
·
S. T. De .. •ai, .!. B. Dadaclu.mji, 0. C. Mathnr
and Ravinder ffomin, for the respondents.
1963. January 18. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR,.J.-This appeal by special
leave raises a short question about the ~onstruction
of section 17 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, l!J47 (No. 5i of
1947) (hereinafter called the Act). The said question
arises in this
way.
The appellant
Knshanlal
Ishwarlal Desai is the landlord who owns an open
plot of
land named Hathi Khada in Kalaswadi
town in the district of Surat. The said plot measu-
res 32,406 sq. ft. This plot was in the possession of the .
respondents Bai Vijkor & others as tenants. In 1951,
the appellant sued the respondents in ejectmeut. He
claimed that under s. 13 (I) ('g) and ( i) of the Act he
was entitled to recover possession of the premises
consisting of the open plot in
questio~. This claim
was resisted by the respondents. fhe tnal Court held
that the appellant had not established his case under
s. 13 (l) (i) but had proved his claim under s. 13 (l)
(g).
Having recorded this finding, the trial Court
•
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
555
proceeded to examine the extent of the requirement
proved by the appellant. Section 13 (I) (g) provides
inter alia, that notwithstanding anything contained
in the Act, a landlord
shall be entitled to re-
cover possession of any premises if the Court is
satisfied that the premises are reasonably and ,bona-
. fied required by the landlord for occupaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.