VORA RAHIMBHAI HAJI HASANBHAI POPAT versus VORA SUNDERLAL MANILAL & ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 04-11-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

717 
VORA RAHIMBllAI !WI llASANBllAI POPAT 
v. 
VORA SUllDl!RLAL !Will.AL & ANB., 
NOVEMBER 4, 1985 
[E.S, VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B, MISRA, JJ,] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rstes (Control) Act, 
1947 Section 13(l)(k). 
Tenant - Not using permises for 11Xlre than six 11Xlnths 
-
Liable for eviction - Stipulation in 'rent note' regarding pay-
~ent of rent for non use -
Whether absolves liability for 
eviction. 
The appellant-plaintiff purchased a plot of land. The 
reapondent-defewlant acceptad the plaintiff as 011Der on a rent of 
1111. 1325 per -
for a period of five years. under a regiatered 
rent note, It was further stipulated therein that the tenant was 
to pay the mnicipal tax in respect of the rented land to the 
plaintiff, that on the 11Xpiry of the period of five years the 
tenant shall remove the constructicmil thereon at hi• own expenae, 
and hand over the premises in the condition it was let out and 
that the premises shall not be let out to anyone else. 
The plaintiff called upon the defendant to r8lllOV8 the 
conetruction erected on the land, and to vacete the preaiaes ·and 
hand over po81ession. As the defendant failad, a suit for 
eviction 111111 filed, on a D11111ber of ground• one of which was that 
the premises had 119t been used by the defendant for a period of 
more than six months prior to the elate of the suit without 
reasonable caused and, therefore the defendant 111111 liable to 
eviction under Section 13(l)(k) of the Bombay Rent•, Hotel and 
Lodging Bouse Rates (Control) Act, 1947. 
The trial. court di8lliased the suit holding that tha notice 
of termiaation wu not valid and that the plaintiff had failed to 
proye boDa fide requirement, and that u 
defendant No.2 vu 
at tted as a sub-tenant many years before the execution of the 
rent note by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not entitled to 
recover poasesaion on the ground of illegal aub-letting. 
The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal and the 
AHietant Judge allowed the appeal partly, holding that the 
. notice of termination wu a valid one, that the plaintiff did not 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R. 
require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for occupation 
for himself and that the suit premises bad not been used by the 
defendant continuously for a period of six mnths iumediately 
preceding the date of suit without any reasonable cause. 
The respondent-tenant took up the matter in revision before 
the High Court, which reversed the finding of the Ist appellate 
court on the question of user by the defendant, holding that the 
construction of the super-structure on the land itself was a user 
and, therefore, the courts below had comnitted a manifest error 
in holding that the land in question had not been used for mre 
than six moths prior to the institution of the suit. 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of 
the appellant-landlord that the tenant was liable to be evicted 
under s.13(l)(k) of the Act inasmich as the premises have not 
been used for the purpose for which they were let out for a 
continUQus period of six moths immediately preceding the date of 
suit without reasonable cause, and that the tenant would be 
liable for eviction even if he did not use the premises and kept 
it locked. 
On behalf of the respondent-tenant it was contended, that 
the purpose of letting cannot be assllllled, and that it has got to 
be alleged and proved. The landlord-plaintiff could seek eviction 
under s. 13(i)(k) of the Act only when he proves the purpose for 
which the premises have been let out and that the same has not 
been used for the purpose for which it was let out. It was 
further contended that if the landlord had specifically taken the 
plea of non-user of the premises for the purpose for which it was 
let out, he would have been able to prove the reasonable cause 
for not doing so but in the absence of such a plea the 
defendant-tenant had been seriously prejudiced, and that sec. 12 
and 13 of the Act are the only two sections which give protection 
to the tenant and unless the conditions in the two sections are 
satisfied the tenant cannot be evicted• 
Allowing the Appeal, 
llEIJ) : 1. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and 
the plaintiff's suit stands decreed. The High Court has gone 
wrong in holding that the construction of super-structure on the 
land in dispute was itself a user. The super-structures had 
already 

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