M/S. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND CO. LTD. versus VIMALABAI PRABHULAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 04-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND CO. LTD. 
v. 
VIMALABAI PRABHULAL AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 2005 
[ARUN KUMAR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: 
Section I I (3)-Bonafide need, premises required for expansion of 
business-Eviction-Maintainability of-Held: It is always the privilege of 
landlord to choose nature and place of business-Tenant cannot dictate terms 
A 
B 
c 
to landlord-Plea that need of expanding business at the suit premises not 
bonafide since landlord and his sons are already having business at other D 
places and one son has settled abroad, is unsustainable-Furthermore, 
landlord-dispute takes long time and one cannot wait indefinitely nor 
development of events can be stopped-Bonafide need is to be seen on date 
when eviction suit was filed unless subsequent event materially change the 
ground of relief-Hence, landlord entitled to eviction. 
E 
Section I I (I 7)-Protection, entitlement of-Constitution of old firm 
occupying tenanted premises since 1918 into Private Limited Company 
incorporated in 1948-Tenancy right of partnership-Claim of-Held: On 
voluntary transfer by Company to newly incorporated Company, it has to be 
pleaded and proved that all members of old firm continued in the new firm-
Tenant failed to prove that Private Limited Company carried same partners F 
on Board of Directors as were prior to I 948 in the old firm-It was newly 
constituted separate legal entity from the date of incorporation-Hence, tenant 
not entitled to protection under section 1l(I7)-Further, pleadings in another 
case cannot be considered, party has to plead and prove its own case-
Companies Act, 1930-Code of Civil Procedure, I 908. 
G 
Joint Hindu Family owned a building at place C. Members of joint 
family constituted a partnership firm. Building was let out to the firm -
tenant who were in occupation of the premises since 1918. The partnership 
firm was later converted into a private limited Company in 1948. There 
973 
H 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A was partition among the members of joint Hindu family and major portion 
of the building was allotted to the group represented by the landlords. 
Landlords filed suit for eviction under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 that their sons had completed their 
education and were idle and wanted the building for their own occupation; 
under section 11(4)(i) on the ground of subletting and under section 
B 11(4)(ii) on the ground of material alteration of the premises. Tenant 
contended that he was perpetual lessee; that the need was not bonafide; 
that there was no material alteration; and that the tenancy commenced 
prior to 1940, and as such could not be evicted. Rent Controller denied 
eviction to the landlords. Landlords then filed an appeal. Appellate 
C Authority partly allowed the appeal and granted eviction under section 
11(3) and rejected under sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Both 
landlord and tenant filed revision petitions against the order. High Court 
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-tenant contended that the finding of the appellate 
D authority as well as the High Court with regard to the bona fide need of 
the landlords is not correct; that the appellant-tenant had been in 
possession of premises since 1940, therefore, appellant is entitled to 
protection under Section 11(17) of the Act; and that the facts pleaded in 
another case with regard to the firm may be considered de hors in actual 
E evidence led in the civil suit. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I. I. The. appella~e court as well as High Court reversed the 
finding of the trial court and heJd that the need of the respondent-landlords 
F to start business at place C, is bona fide genuine and it cannot be said that 
a person who is already having business at one place cannot expand his 
business at any other place in the country. The same is justified and cannot 
be interfered by this Court on the ground of being perverse or without 
any basis. The landlords have led evidence to show that one of their sons 
G who had requisite qualification for starting a computer institute wanted 
to establish the same at place C and others for extension of their business 
which have been examined by the Courts. The landlords their sons have 
their business spreading over other cities and if they wanted to expand 
their business at place C

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