RASIK AUTO STORES AND ORS. versus NAVIN V. HANTODKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 10-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RASIK AUTO STORES AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NA VIN V. HANTODKAR AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(vi)-Scope of 
Landlord-Suit for eviction against tenant-Ground ofbonafide requirement-
Tenant 's plea that landlord is having other premises of his own in the city-
Maintainability of-Landlord and his wife both practising doctors-Suit C 
premises situated in a building where in other part the respondent-landlord 
was carrying on his clinic-For expansion of the said clinic he require the 
suit premises-Finding recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the 
appellate fourt that the accommodation available with the respondent-
landlord in the building was insufficient for two doctors as the landlord- D 
Finding arrived at on facts accepted by High Court-Held there was no need 
to remand the matter-Tenant's petition dismissed 
Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co., (1998) S 
sec 572, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 16221 ofl998 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.98 of the Bombay High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 33of1997. 
V.N. Ganpule (A.P. Mayee) and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
F 
We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. His only 
contention was that in the light of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent G 
Control Order, 1949, because the landlord is having other premises of his own 
in the adjoining part of the very suit premises, the suit for possession of the 
suit premises was liable to fail. The said provision reads as under :-
"13. (3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied-
H 
629 
630 
A 
B 
c 
(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 
(iv) 
(v) 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
(vi) 
that the lanlord needs the premises or a portion thereof, for the 
purpose of his bonafide occupation provided that he is not occupying 
any _other premises of his own in the city or town concerned; or" 
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners is right when he contends 
that if the above clause is literally read, it would indicate that moment it is 
shown that the landlord is occupying any other premises of his own in the 
city, his suit for bona fide requirement of the suit premises can never be 
entertained and nothing more is required to be shown save and except 
D establishing on record that the landlord is having other premises of his own 
in the city. It is not in dispute that the suit premises are situated in a building 
where in other part the respondent-landlord is carrying on his clinic and his 
need is for expansion of the said clinic and that is why he requires the suit 
premises. The aforesaid contention of learned senior counsel would have 
E required closer scrutiny but for the fact that there is a decision of the 3-Judge 
Bench of this Court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading 
Co., [I 998] 5 SCC 572, which repelled similar contention. The said decision 
has taken the view on a pari materia provision found in Andhra Pradesh 
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, wherein Section 
F 
10(3)(a)(iii) provided that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order 
directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building in case 
it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-
residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own 
or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or 
otherwise. Construing these words, it was observed in para 8 of the report, 
G as under:-
"That the aspects of quality, size and suitability of the building 
have been totally out of consideration by the courts below. We think 
this would frustrate the purposes of the Act. Here was a claim set up 
by the landlord that the non-residential premises he owned did not 
H 
serve the purpose of his need of setting up a textile and cloth business 
RASIKAUTO STORESv. NAVJNV.HANTODKAR 
631 
and that the need could only be met in seeking eviction of the tenant A 
from premises sought." 
Accepting the said contention, this Court remanded the proceedings for 
getting a finding on this aspect. 
In the facts of the present case, there is a clear finding recorded by the B 
Rent Controller as well as by the appellate court that 300 sq. ft. of the 
accommodation available with the respondent-landlord in the

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