RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC. versus KALYAN MAL

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 10-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. VARADARAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_, 
' 
945 
A 
RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC. 
v. 
KALYANMAL 
B 
October JO, 1984 
(A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJJ, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 196!-Sectlon 12 (l) (/)and 
C 
(h)-An order made in eviction proceeding in which landlord established that he 
bonafide required premises for his occupation is one under section 12 (/) (f) and 
not under section 12 (!) (h). 
The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellants-tenants under 
section 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on 
the main ground that the landlord bonafide required the pren1ises for locating 
D 
his gold and silver ornaments factory after demolishing and reconstructing the 
building. The courts below found that the requirement of the landlord was 
bonafide and ordered eviction of the tenants under section 12 (l) (f) and (h) of 
the Act. In these appeals the tenants contended that since the eviction ordered 
was under section 12 (1) (h), section 18 of the Act was attracted and it was 
obligatory on the part of the landlord to provide accommodation of equal 
extent to the tenants in the new building to be constructed by him. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : In Ramnilal P. Mehta v. Indradaman A1nrltlal this Court observed 
that once the landlord establishes that he bonafide requires the premises for his 
occupation, he is entitled to recover possession of it from the tenant under the 
provisions of sub-clause (g) of section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
Lodging Hous.e, Rates Control Act, 1947 irrespective of the fact whether he 
would occupy the premises without making any alterations or after 1naking 
the necessary alterations. (9488-CJ 
Ramnl/a/ P. Mehta v. lndradaman Amrlt/a/ Sheth, AIR 1964 SC 16 76, 
referred to. 
Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House, Rates 
Control Act, 1947 corresponds to section 12 (1) (fl of the Madhya Pradesh 
Accommodation Control Act. [948A] 
Applying the above principle to the facts oftbe instant case, though the Courts 
below. have passed the order of eviction under section 12 (I) (f) and (h), the 
Court is of the opinion that the order of eviction is based really and aubstan-
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 1 s.c.a. 
Hally only under s.ection 12 (I) (f) of the Act. The fact that section 12 (1) (h) 
is also mentioned 10 the order of the Court below does not make the order of 
eTiction purely one under that section, for the main ground of requirement of 
the landlord is bonafide personal requirement for locating his proposed factory 
for the manufacture of gold or silver ornaments. Therefore there is no case 
for the application of section 18 to the facts of the present case. (947F-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 750-53 of 1982. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 
the 3rd September, 1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 
S.A. Nos. 249, 251-253 of 1980. 
WlTH 
Civil Appeal No. 3357 of 1982. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 
the 24th August, 1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second 
D 
Appeal No. 311 of 1982. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A.JC Sen, R.P. Singh Suman Kapoor. D.S. Mehra and R.K. Jain, 
for the Appellants in C.A s. 750-53 of 1982. 
P.K .Tain, for the Appellants in CA. 3357/82. 
U.R. La/it. Mrs. Suneeta Kirplani, Ashok Mahajan and S.K. 
Gambhir for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
VARDARAJAN, J. These appeals by special leave are by the 
tenants whose eviction has been ordered by all the courts below 
under section 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommoda-
tion Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the respondent landlord 
requires the premises bonafide for the purpose of having his gold 
and silver ornaments factory after demolishing the present building 
and putting up a new building at the place. The tenants were 
carrying on various kinds of business in the premises. Their defence 
was that the landlord has other alternative accommodation where 
he could locate his proposed factory and that his requirement is not 
bonafide. 
The courts below have found 
that the alternative 
accommodation alleged by the appellants to be available to the 
landlord is really a farm house which is used for the residential 
purpose, namely as accommodation for the farm servants of the 
~· 
RAl>HEY SHYAM v. kALYAN MAL (Vardarajan, J.) 
941 
landlord and it is situated about these miles away from the town 
and near a burial gr

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