LexPANCHAMAL NARAYAN SHENOY versus BASTHI VENKATESHA SHENOY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
734 PANCHAMAL NARAYAN SHENOY v. BASTHI VENKATESHA SHENOY February 20, 1970 A [S. M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J B Mysi>re Rent Control Act (Mys. 22 of 1961), s. 21(l)j-Reasonably and bona fide required for immediate demo/ition...:...Whether has reference to condition of p'l'emises. Under s. 21(1)(j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 the court may on an application order the recovery of possession of any premises in favour of the landlord, if "the premises are reasonably . and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of enacting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished,". The respon- dent-landlord applied under· s. 21 ( 1 )(j) for eviction of the tenants- appellants, claiming that the premises were reasonably and bona fide re- quired by him for the immediate purpose of demolishing and erecting of a c new building, that the premises were old and were not suitable for conti- nued occupation. The respondent claimed to have obtained the necessary · D licence and to have made all preparations for demolishing the existing building and erecting new building. · The appellants-tenants contested the claim. The Rent Controller accepted the respondent-landlord's claim and ordered eviction, which in appeal, and further revision to the High Court was upheld. In appeal to this Court for the appellant-tenant, it was con- tended that unless the landlord was able to establish that the condition of the building was such that it required immediate demolition and recons- truction, no eviction of the tenant could be onlered under s. 2l(l)(j). Rejecting this contention and dismissing the appeal, HELD : The requirement contemplated under clause (j) of the proviso to sub-s. (I) is that of the landlord and it does not have any reference to E the condition of the building as such. What is necessary under that clause is that the landlord must satisfy the Court that be reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is for the purpose of erecting a new building in the place of the F old one. No doubt, whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable and bona fide has to be judged in the . light of the surrounding circumstances, which will include his means for reconstruction of the building, and other steps taken by him in that regard. [737 G, HJ In considering the reasonable and bona fide requirements of the land- lord under this clause, the desire of the landlord to put the property to a more profitable use after demolition and reconstruction is also a factor that G may be taken into account in favour Of the landlord. It is not necessary that the landlord should go further and establish under this clause that the condi- tion of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. [738 DJ Neta Ram v. liwan Lal, [1962l Supp. 2 S.C.R. 623, referred to. Meltsin Bhai v. Hale & Company, (1964) II M.L.J. 147, contra observa- tion disapproved. H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1552 of 1966. A B c () E F G H PANCHAMAL v. BASTHI (Vaidialingam, J.) 735 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 8, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in C.R.P. No. 1118 of 1964. . M. C. Chag/a and R. Gopalaktishnan, for the appellant. M. R. Ramamurthi, S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for the respondent. The J udgmt1D't of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. 1his appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the Mysore High Court, dated June 8, 1966 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1118 of 1964. The respondent land-lord filed an application, dated July 6, 1962 unde.r s. 2l(l)(j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (Mysore Act XXII of 1961) (hereinafter called the Act) before the Rent Controller for evictiqn of the tenants (the appellants herein) on the ground that the premises were reasonably 3illd bona- fide required by him for the immediate purpose of demolishing and erecting of a new building. According to the respcndent the pre- mises were old and were jllOt suitable for continued occupatmn. The respcndent had also stated in his application that he had obtained the necessary licence for erecting a new building after demolition of the existing building and that he had made all prepa- rations for demolition aind erection of new buildings on the site.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.