LexRAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA versus INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA y, INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 19'47, s. 13(1) (g). (hh).-Premis" required bonafide for occupation aft<r carrying out repairs-Sub-section if applicable. 1be appellant was a tenant of the ground lloor of a house owned by responQent. The respondent sued for ejectment of the appellant on the groun'd that he required the entire house including the portion occu- pied by •PPellaot, for his residential purpose. The defence of the appe- llant was that respondent did not reasonably and bona fide require the premises for his occupation and for carrying out repairs. The trial court decreed the suit of the respondent on the ground that respondent bona fide required the premises for his occupation. The appelll of the appel- lant was dismissed. His revision petition was also dismissed. by Higli Court. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. The only question for decision before this Court was whether the case . of respon· \lent came within the provisions of s. 13(l)(g) ors. 13(1) (bh), Dismi• ing the appeal, HELD:-The case of respondent fell under cl. (g) as be required tho premises for his own occupation. The mere fact that he i.~tendcd to make alterations in the house either on account of his sweet will or on account of absolute necessity in view of the condition of the house, did not affect the question of his requiring the ho~e bona fide and reasonably for his occupation, when he had proved his need for occupying tho home. There was no such prohibition either in the language of cl. (g) or in any other provision of the Act lo the etFect that the landlord must occupy the house for resitlence without making any alteration in it. There could be no logical ieaso~ for such a prohibition. The provisions of •· 13 are for the benefit of/the landlord and the various grounds for ejectment mentioned in th~t/~ection are ·such which reasonably justify the ejectment of the tenant in the ·exercise of the landlord's general right lo eject his tenant. There fs no reason why restrictions not mentioned in the grounds be read into them. The provisions of cl. (hh) cannot possi- bly apply to a case where a landlord reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation even if he had to demolish the premises and erect a new building on them. The provisions of cl. (hh) apply to cases where the landlord does not require the premises for his own occupation but requires them for erectins a """ buildinc whicll it lo be let out lo tenants. JI S. C.-4 1964 April, It .. 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1964 Krishanlal lshwarlal Desai v. Bai Viikor [1964] l S.C.R. 553, Krishna ~ ...,,, ·ki""' l"t Das v. Bidhan Chandra, A.l.R. 1959 Cal. 181. McKenna •· Porter Moton "'ba~da• 1 am- Ltd. [1956] A.C. 688, Betty's Cates Ltd. v. Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd. v. (1959] A.C. 20, Manchharam Ghelabhai Pittalwala v. Surat Electricity Co. lndrad11man Ltd. Civil Revision Application No. 204/56 dated !st February, 1957 by Amratlal the Bombay High Court and Allarkha Fakirmahomed v. Surat Electricity Co. Ltd., Civil Revision Application No. 164/57, claled 8th October, 1957 by the Bombay High Court, referrett to. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; CIVIL APPEAL No. 61 OJ!I 1964 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 28, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 697 of 1962. Purshottam Trikamdas, M. I. Patel and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant. S. T. Desai, B. J. Shelat, J.B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. April 28, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli- vered by h b D I RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is "l.ag u ar UJ• J. directed against the order of the Bombay High Court and raises the question of the true construction of sub-els. (g) and (hh) of sub-s. ( 1.) of s. 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 194 7), hereinafter called the Act. The facts leading to the appeal, in short, are that the appellant is a tenant of the ground-floor of a house owned by the respondent.. The respondent sued for the ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he required the entire house, including the portion occupied by the appellant, for his residential purpose. He further
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.