SHANTILAL THAKORDAS & ORS. versus CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL TELWALA

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 23-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J -
SHANTILAL THAKORDAS & ORS. 
v. 
CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL TELWALA 
August 23, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. 3HINGHAL, JJ.] 
341 
Bombay Rents, H(lfel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947--Sectioll, 
13(1) (b)-Suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide and personal need of a 
landlord-Whether right to sue survives to his heirs-Requirement of firm in 
which landlord is a partner whether his requirement-Whether decree 
passed 
in favour of landlord can be disturbed on his death. 
Tkakordas, father .Qf 3 appellants, was the owner of the suit premises. He 
was a part11er in a firm which had 3 other partners. One of the partners was 
appellant No. 1, the soil of Thakordas and two partners were ol!lsiders. 
A 
suit for eviction was filed against the respondent on the ground that Thakordas 
required the premises fer th!l said firm reasonably and bona tide within the 
meaning of s. 13 (I )(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court passed 
a decree for eviction in respect ot a portion of the premises. 
Thereafter, 
Thakordas died an<i the present appellants who are his sons filed ai1 appeal. 
Likewise the tenant also filed an appeal. Appellants No. l and 2 together with 
some outsiders continued the firm. 
However, appellant No. 3 a minor son of 
Thakorda~ was not admitted to the benefit of the partnership. The First Appel-
late Court conRI-med the decree of the trial court. The revision application fil~ 
by the tenant was allowed and one filed by the appellants was dismissed by the 
High Court relying on the decision of this Court in Phu! Rani & Ors. v. 
Naubat Rai Ahluwalia [1973] 3 SCR 679. 
In an appeal by special leave, tho appellants contended : 
1. Phul Rani's case was not correctly decided and the right of Thakordu 
A 
B 
c 
D 
sunived in favour of the appellants. 
E 
2. The requirement of the firm in which the landlord is a partner will be 
the requirement of the landlord. 
3. Since the decree had already been passed in favour of Thakordas 
before his death it could not be disturbed on his death either in appeal 
or in revision. 
Dismissing the appelll, 
HELD: (1) Phul Rani's case was wrongly deciaed. If the law permitted 
the eviction of the tenant for the requirements of the landlord "for occupation 
as a residence for himself and members of his family" then the requirement wu 
bo!h of the landlord and the members of his family. On his death, the right to 
~ue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. After 
the death of the original landlord the senior member of his family takes his 
place, ud is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation 
and the occupation of the other members of the family. [343 H, 344 A-BJ 
, 
(2) It is doubtful whether the requirement of the premi~es by the landlord 
for occupation by the firm in whioh he is a partner will tantameunt to occupa-
tion by himself. Even if it is assumed that it will amount to occupation by the 
iandlord, since in the new firm the minor son of Thakordas was not admitted 
to the benefits of the partnership he had no interest in the said firm. Therefore, 
as far as appellant No. 3 is concerned, he could iu no sense be said to require 
the premises. [344 C-G] 
_ , (3) The conclusion in Phu! Rani's case that if a decree had been already 
passed in favour of the plaintiff that could not be disturbed on his death is not 
correctly decided. 
In fact, no final opinion was expressed in Phu! Rani's case 
on that question. [344 H, 345 A] 
F 
G 
H 
A 
342. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 1 S.C.R. 
Phu/ Rani & Ors. v. Nau/wt Rai Alilull'alia [1973] 3 S.C.R. 679, over1t.icu. 
CtYJL APPELLATE JuRISDICTJON : Civil Appeals Nos. 487-.+tiS of 
1976. 
. 
. 
(AppC'al by Special Leave l'rom che Judrrment 
and Order 
t:<!tcd 
19.12.1973 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application 
B 
No. 540 and 678 of 1970). 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia, for the appeliants. 
R. P. Bhatt and H. S. Pa.rihG" for /. N. Shro/]. for the respondent. 
The Judgment <:f the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-In these appeals by special leave-• the question 
which falls for our determination is whether the decision of a Bench 
of this Court consisting of two learned Judges in Phul Rani & Ors. 
v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia(1) is correct. If not, whether the appel-
lants are entitled to get a decree for eviction in respect of the suit 
premises against the. defendant respondent. 
Thakordas Bhagwandas-the father 

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