Auto Stores & Ors Vs. Navin V Hantodkar & Anr  INSC 325 (17 June 1998)
Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao.
O R D
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 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.
said provision reads as under :-
If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied.
the landlord 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.
senior counsel for the petitioners it 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 bonafide
requirement of the suit premises can never be entertained and nothing more is
required to be shown save and except 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 required closer scrutiny but for the fact
that there is a decision of the 3 Judge Bench of this Court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah
& Sons vs. Pushpa Trading Co. 1998 (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 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 is 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, as under :- "That the aspects of quality, size and
suitability of the building have been totally put out of consideration by the
courts below. We think this would frustrate the purposes of the Act. Here would
frustrate the purposes of the that the non-residential premises he owned did
not serve the purpose of his need of setting up a textile and cloth business
and that the need could only be met in seeking eviction of the tenant from the
premises sought." Accepting the said contention, this Court remanded the
proceedings for getting a finding on this aspect.
facts of the present case, there is a clear finding recorded by the Rent
Controller as well as by the appellant court that 300 sq.ft. of the
accommodation available with the respondent-landlord in the building is
insufficient for two doctors as the landlord and his wife both are practising
view of this finding arrived at on facts and accepted by the High Court, in our
view, no need for remand would arise. The ratio of the aforesaid decision would
squarely state in the face of the petitioners.
result, the petition fails and is dismissed.