M. PADMANABHA SETTY versus K. P. PAPIAH SETTY

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 11-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

M. PADMANABHA SETTY 
v. 
K. P. PAPIAH SETTY 
Marclz I I, I 966 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA-
TULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.) 
Mysore House Rent and Acco1nntodation Control A.er (30 of 1951), 
s. 8(3) (a)(ii)-'"Elltitled to possession'", meaning of. 
The appellant and the respon.dcnl were the tenant and landlord re"-
:pectively, of the non-residential premises in dispute. 
The respondent's 
upplication under s. 8(3)(a) (ii) of the Mysore House Rent and Accom-
modation Contnrol Act, 1951, for eviction of the appeUant on the ground 
1hat the respondent required the prcmiscS for the purpose of shifting hi3 
tbmusiness which he was carrying on in a rented building, was ordered, 
but the order was set aside by the appellate court. 
The High O>urt .in 
revision set aside the appellate order ~nd restored the order ot evic-
tion. · 
Ia appeal to this Court, it was 
contended that : 
(i) since 
the rc.1-
pondent was, within the meaning of s. 8(3)(a)(ii). '"entitled to pooses-
sion" of the building in his occupation he had no right to ask for the 
· ..appellant's eviction; and (ii) the High Court should not have interfered in 
re'wision under s. 17 of the Act. 
HELD : 
(i) The High Court was right in ordering the eviction of 
the appellant from the premises. 
• 
The respondent, who was in occupation of a build"ng as a tenant. 
and over which he had no absolute right of possession but only a right 
1:0 remain in possession till one of the conditions in s. 8(2) is satisfied. 
could not be srud to be "entitled to possess'on" of that building. 
Tho.•e 
·,vords are more akin to the right of possession which an owner has in 
respect of a building owned and occupied by him. [873 E-GJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(ii) In not following the decision of the High Court in Narayanappa v. 
F 
Narasimhlali, [1962) Mys. L.J. 760, the appellate court acted with mate-
Tial irregularity and so the High Court could set aside the appellate orcler 
in revision. [874 BJ 
Tfianappa Chetty v. Govindaswami Naicker, A.l.R. 1952 Mad. 553. 
·overruled. 
Crv!L APPELLATE JURISDICATION: 
Civil Appeal No. 756 of 
1%5. 
G 
•. 
•
Appeal by special leave from the judgmenf'and order dated 
April 9, 1965 of tbe Mysore High Court in Civil Revision Petition 
No. 1044 of 1962. 
'4, 
S. K. Venkatarangaiengar G. L. Sanghi, J. B. 
Dadacl1anji, 
·O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 1 
· 
H 
Mirle N. Lakshminaraynappa 0. P. Malhotra, S. S. Khm1d11ja 
<llnd Ganpat Rai. for the respondant. 
A 
• 
• 
_I 
B 
;i 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
... 
H 
PADMANABHA v. PAPIAH (Sikri, J.) 
869> 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Mysore in Civil Revision Petition 
No. 1044 of 1962, filed under s. 17 of the Mysore House Rent and 
Accommodation Control Act, 1951 
(Mysore Act 30 of 1951)-
hereinafter referred to as the Act-whereby the High Court set 
aside the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, 
Bangalore. The III Additional Judge had set aside the order of 
the First Munsiff, Bangalore, who had directed the eviction of the 
ten.int from the premises in dispute. 
The appellant before us, 
Padmanabha Setty, hereinafter 
referred to as the tenant, was the tenant of a non-residential pre-
mises No. 281, Old Tharagupet, Bangalore City. The tenant had 
installed some machinery in the premises. The respondent, K. P. 
Papiah Setty, is the landlord. 
He had purchased the premises for 
his own use and occupation, namely, for the purpose of shifting 
his business which he was carrying on in a rented building to the· 
premises in dispute. 
The landlord filed an application under 
s.8(3)(a)(ii) of the Act for the eviction of the tenant on the 
ground that he required the premises m dispute for his own 
use and occuption. 
It is not necessary to give the other 
allegations made in the application as both the First Munsiff, 
Bangalore, and the III Additional District Judge, 
Bangalore, 
have found that the landlord required the premises for his 
honafide use and occupation, namely, for shifting his business 
from the rented premises to the premises in dispute. The Ill 
Additional District Judge, however, held that under s. 8(3)(a)(ii) 
the landlord was not entitled to possession of the premises in dispute 
unless and until he was prepared to vacate the shops in which he 
was trading at the time. This finding of the learned Additional 
Judge was contrary to the 

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