METALWARE & CO. ETC. versus BANSILAL SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1107 · Decided: 04-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
' 
• 
1107 
METALWARE & CO. ETC. 
v. 
BANSILAL SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. 
May 4, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 14(1)-
(b). 14(2)(b). 15 and 16-Scope of. 
B 
The appellant, a proprietary concern, has been a tenant of a shop in the 
C 
premises in dispute. The respondent had purchased the building 
in 
1975 
and filed eviction applications against all the tenants on the ground that ( 1) 
the building being very old and dilapidated required immediate demolition 
and reconstruction, (ii) the appellants bona fide required 
it for their own 
occupation, (iii) they possessed of sufficient means to undertake the demoli-
tion and reconstruction and lastly they obtained from the Municipal Corpora-
tion sanction for reconstruction. The appellants disputed the 
above 
allega-
& 
tions. 
The Rent Controller held that the respondent had sufficient means to 
undertake the demolition and reconstruction, (ii) the intention to demolish the 
e1tisting structure and to reconstruct another building on the same site was honest 
but did not give a definite finding on the question "whether the building was in a 
dilapidated condition and required immediate demolition and reconstn1ction. The 
Rent Controller took the view that it was not always essential to prove that the 
building was decrepit before an application for possession could be made and that 
E 
the respondent had right to demolish his property in order to build a new struc· 
ture on the site with a view to improve his business. He therefore, ordered evic-
tion of the appellant. Their appeal against the decision of the Rent Controller 
was dismissed. The appellants filed a civil revision in the High Court which 
was also dismissed on the ground that the only thing to be looked into in such 
cases is whether the intention to demolish the building was present, with the future 
intention to reconstruct and whether the same is bona fide and all thes'e were 
F' 
found in favour of the respondent-landlord. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HEW: I. The phrase used in s. 14(1) (b) of the Act is "the building 
is bona fide required by the landlord" for the immediate purpose of demoli-
G 
tion and reconstruction and the.· same clearly refers to the bona fide require .. 
ment of the landlord. The requirement in the terms is not that the build-
ing should need immediale demolition and reconstruction. The state or condition 
of tbe. building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate den1oli-
tion and reconstruction in futur'e would not be a totalJy irrelevant factor while 
determining "the bona fide requirement of the landlord." If the Rent Controller 
has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must 
H 
mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller 'vill have to 
take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
.E 
F 
G 
H 
1108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ J 979] 3 S.C. R. 
factor~ of the landlord being possessed of sufficient n1eans or funds to under-
take the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the 
existing 
condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise 
of its being put to a more profitable use <1fter reconstruction. All these factors 
being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Con1roller oi the question 
of the bona fide requirement of the landlord, under s. 14( 1) (b). Tn a sense if the 
building happens. to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily 1nak;? fur· the bona 
fide requirement of th'e landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any 
means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. 
Conversely a 
landlord being possessed of sufficient means to undertake the project of demoli-
tion 2.ridl reconstruction by itself 1nay r:ot be sul1lcient to establish his hona fide 
requirement if the building happens to be a very recent consti uctiotl it1 a perfectly 
sound condition and its .situation may prevent ils being put to a more profitable 
use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors n1ay i.,:;i_..,t a scriou:) doubt 
on the landlord's. bona fide requirement. 
It i'i. th'eref'orc, clear that the age 
and condition of the building would certainly be a rcle\'ant fa".:tor which will 
have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fidL' requiren1ent 
of the landlord under s. 14( 1) (b) of the AcL ;·1nd the s

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