PHIROZE BAMANJI DESAI versus CHANDRAKANT M. PATEL & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 04-02-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
267 
PHIROZE BAMANJI DESAI 
v. 
CHANDRAKANT M. PATEL & ORS. 
February 4, 1974 
[P. N. BHAGWAT! AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
f!on1bay. Rents Hotel and Lodging Hollse Rates (Control) Act (57 of 
19' I), Sections 13( l)fg), 13(2) and 29(3 )-ReaJonable and bona/ide require-
1nent of preniises for personal use and occupation-Juridical possession of 
other pren1ises 
1by landlord-Whether can be1 taken into account in determining 
need of landlord. 
Bon1ba)' Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, Sec. 29(3) 
Rev(sional p"wers of the High Court--Scope-Hig.h Court can interfere only 
if tfiere is n1iscarriage of justice due to n1istake I of law-Finding of lower 
court a_f to bona fide require1ne111 and greater hardship to Jandlord-lnter-
Jerence by High Coutt by re~appreciating evidence not pennissible. 
The appellant was the owner of -two bungalows, called "'Truth Bungalow'' 
and ''Hill Bungalow'' 
1 in. Navsari, South Gujarat. The Truth Bungalow con-
sisted of only one tenement \Yith a separate room on the ground floor which 
was in the possession of the <1.ppell<int, 
The rest of the Truth Bungalow wl:iiCh 
had been let out to a tenant who subsequently surrendered possession was 
given on leave-and-licence to one B in 1967. 
The Hill Bungalow consisteJ of two tenements, one on the ground fioOI' 
and the other on the first floor. 
The first floor is occupied by S, the mother 
of the appellant since the last seyeral years. 
She was paying a sum of 
Rs. 50/- p·.m. to the appellant for the occupation of the first floor. 
The 
ground floor of the Hill Bungalow was let out by the appellant to one M in 
1957 at a rent of Rs. 65/- p.m. 
M died in September 1966 leaving behind 
him his ·widow, respondent No. 5, his son, Resp. No. 1 and his daughter, 
respondent No. 2. 
Sometime prior to the death of M respondent Nos. 3 and 
4 together with the members or their respective families had come to reside 
in the ground floor pren1ise.;;, 
After the death of M they continued to stay with 
respondent No. 1, Respondent Nos. 2 and 5, however, left the ground floor 
premises and went away from Navsari soon after the death of M. Th! l!Ppel-
lant by a notice elated 15-10-1966 terminated the tenancy of respondent Nos. 
1, 2 and 5. on the ground that they had unlawfully sub-let the ground floor 
premises to respondents Nos. 3 ·and 4 within the meaning of sec. 13(1)(e) 
of the Act. 
However. the respondents failed to hand over vacant possession 
of the ground floor prernises to the appellant. Therefore, on 18-1-1967, the 
appellant filed a suit for e\·iction under sec. 13( l)(e) of the Act. The appel· 
!ant was carrying on his profession as an Architect and Consulting Engineer 
in Bombay since 1960, \\hen he retired from Army SerVice. 
He lived in a 
flat in Bombay for \\hich he paid Rs. 475/- p.m. The principal area of his 
work in the earlv stages of hi" career was Rombay and South Gujarat but by 
~·bout the middle· of I96!l, 
hie; work in Bombay practicalJy dwindled to nil 
find his profesc;ionnl r!Cti,-ities became confined almost exc!usively to South 
Gnj:i-::at. 
The appellant accordingly decided to settle down in Navsarj which 
was bis natiYe place where hie; mother was living for 
last several 
yenr<J 
and 
frotn where he would be able to carry on his profession conveniently. ccc-
non~ically and \\ith ad\'ar.tage. 
The appellant accordingly at,nended the .J:?laint 
in lhe pendinc. suit with the ]eave of the Court introducing an add1t1onal 
ground that he reasonably t•nd bD.":.1 fide required the groun~ floor premises 
for his personal use and occupation and was, therefore, entitled . to recover 
possession u/s 13(l)(g) of the Act. Respondent N.o~. 2 .and S did not con-
test the suit of the appellant as they \Vere not residing tn the groun:l floor 
premises and the main aefen:e \Vas on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 nnd 4, 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974] 3 S.C.R. 
who denied the allegations made in the plaint and disputed .the grounds on 
which possession was sought to be iecovered by the appellant. 
The trial Court on consideration of the evidence led on behalf of the ap-
pellant and respondent nos. 1,3 and 4, took the view that the appellant had not 
established that respondents nos. 3 a)ld 4 were sub-tenants of respondent no.1 
and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to recover possession of the 
ground floor prernise·s on the ground of unlawful sub-letting. 
However, the trial 
court held tha

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