M/S. MODERN TAILORING HALL ETC. versus SHRI H.S. VENKUSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 24-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. MODERN TAILORING HALL ETC. 
v. 
SHRI H.S. VENKUSA AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 1997 
B 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1986 : 
Ss.2(1)(h) and 2( l)(j}-Eviction of tenant for bona fide requirement of 
landlord and for re-construction after demolition re;pectivel»--Landlord seek-
C ing eviction of tenants on ground after bonafide requirement after demolition 
and re-co11st1uctio11-Held-The grounds of eviction in two provisions being 
mutually exclusive have flowing therefrom separate individual rights and 
obligations and they cannot be pemiitted to overlap so as to con[ er 011 the 
coun the discretion of employing one provision over the othe1~An application 
D of landlord if not failing under S.21 ( 1) (h ), would, 011 its own, me lit dismiss-
al-Coult cannot treat it in its discretion as one under S.2J(l)(j) and order 
an unwanted eviction-The distinction qualitatively has to be maintained. 
E 
F 
G 
Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta v. lndradaman Amratlal Sheth, [1964] 
8 SCR Page 1, relied on. 
Smt. Rohinibai v. Vislmwnwthy, (1980) ILR (Vol. I) Karnaktaka 
Page, 340 (D.B.), approved. 
P.K Upadhyaya v. A. Venkatesh, ITR (1990) Karnataka, 4060, dis-
approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12709-10 
of 1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.96 of the Karnataka High 
Court in C.R.P. namely H.R.R.P. Nos. 1038-39 of 1995. 
C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.V. Vishwanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for 
the Appellants. 
S.N. Bhat for the Respondents. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
984 
MODERN TAILORING HALL v. H.S. VENKUSA 
985 
Leave was granted in these appeals limited to the question whether A 
after demolition and reconstruction of the building, the appellants-tenants 
have a right of re-entry. 
The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986 in its Section 21 (l)(h) 
confers on the landlord the right to claim eviction of a building bona fide 
B 
required for his own occupation and Section 21 (l)G) confers on ,him the 
right to seek eviction to have the building demolished and reconstructed, 
but subject to the right of re-entry of the tenant. These two rights are 
encircled with corresponding obligations inasmuch as under the former 
provision the landlord is required to enter the premises himself within the C 
statutory period failing which the tenant has a right of re- entry, and in the 
latter provision, the landlord is required to give an undertaking so as to 
ensure observance of the terms of re-entry on reconstruction of the build-
ing. The present cases are such in which the landlord has sought eviction 
of the tenants under Section 21 (l)(h) of the Act on the ground that he 
bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation but after D 
demolition and reconstruction. The point arising for consideration is 
whether the landlord's claim was rightly based under Section 21 (1) (h) or 
was it founded under Section 21(1)G)? 
The consistent view of the Karnataka High Court in a series of 
decisions starting from the case titled as Smt. Rohinibai v. Vishnumurthy, 
(1980) ILR Karnataka Series Vol.1 Page, 340 (D.B.) is that the two 
provisions, i.e., Section 21(1)(h) and Section 21 (l)(j) are mutually ex-
clusive and that demolition and reconstruction of a premises by the 
landlord for his own use and occupation, after getting an order of eviction, 
clearly falls under Clause (h) of Section 21 (1) and not under Clause (j). 
It has been viewed that the pica of the landlord for bona fide requirement, 
for his own use and occupation of the premises under Section 21 (l)(h), 
would include the occupation of the premises after making any alteration 
or a new construction on securing an order of eviction. This c:>..1ended 
meaning was given by the Karnataka High Court on the basis of a decision 
reported in Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta v. !11dradama11 Amratlal Sheth, 
[1964] 8 SCR Page, 1, a decision by a three Member Bench of this Court. 
Identical provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates 
Control Act, 1947 were examined and it was held that the demolition of 
E 
F 
G· 
the existing building and subsequent erection of a new building were only H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A intermediate steps in order to make the building fit for occupation by the 
landlord. A nitch was thus carved that till the new building was altered or 
reconstructed to the satisfaction of the landlord, his obligation to enter the 
premises within the 

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