http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1991

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  503            1991 SCR  (1) 152  1991 SCC  (1) 649        JT 1991 (1)   254  1991 SCALE  (1)75

ACT:      Bombay  Rents,  Hotel and Lodging House  Rates  Control Act,  1947-Section  13(1)(c)-Eviction-Whether  covers   non- residential premises. Bombay  Rent,  Hotel and Lodging Rates  Control  Act,  1947- Section   13(1)(c)-"Convicted   of  using   the   premises"_ Construction of_-Legislative intention-Repeated user of  the premises  for sale of adulterated food and convicted  twice- Conviction whether justified.

HEADNOTE:      Respondent-Landlady  started  an  eviction   proceeding under  Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act  against  the petitioner-tenant,  running a shop, selling sweet-meats  and farsen  on the tenanted premises, as he was convicted  twice under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.      Accepting claim of the land-lady the High Court ordered eviction.      Tenant   contending  that  "convicted  of   using   the premises"   in  Section  13(1)(c)  be  limited  to  offences involving  the user of the premises that the provision  does not cover non-residential premises, filed the Special  Leave Petition.      Dismissing the petition, this Court,      HELD:  1.  Section 13(1)(c) covers both residential  as well  as  non-residential premises.  If clause  (c)  is  not applicable  to business premises, there is no other  similar provision  in the Bombay Rent Act relating to  the  business premises.   The  consequence  would be that  the  tenant  in business premises could use the premises for committing  any offence  or  he could commit nuisance and annoyance  to  the adjoining   or neighbouring occupiers and yet claim that  he is  not liable to be evicted on that grounds.  Whereas,  the tenant  of residential premises would not be able to  commit such  offence  without  the penalty of  eviction.   Such  an interpretation would render the Section vulnerable to  attack under Article 14 of the Constitution. [155D-G].                                                        153      2.  The expression "convicted of using  the  premises:" cannot  be  given too liberal construction so  as  to  cover every case of conviction of the tenant.[156B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    3.   Section  13(1)(c) was not intended to be  a  moral code of conduct for the tenant.  For each and every  offence committed  at the premises, the tenant cannot be exposed  to the  risk  of eviction.  The crime may be  forced  upon  the tenant  at  the  premises by third parties.   There  may  be casual  or  incidental  crimes.   There  may  be   technical offences  connected  with  the trade or  licence  to  trade. There may be crimes where use of the premises has nothing to do  except being the scene of the offence.  All  such  cases cannot satisfy the requirements of Section 13(1)(c).  [157A- B]      4.  The tenant must take advantage of his tenancy of the premises  and of the opportunity they afford for  permitting the crime.  Only such crimes could fall within the scope  of Section 13(1)(c).  There need not be continuous for repeated user of the premises for committing such crimes. [157B-C] [In  the  instant  case, the tenant used  the  premises  for carrying out illegal sale of adulterated food along with his usual  business  in  sweet meats and  farsen.   He  used  the premises deliberately and taken advantage of his tenancy for committing the offences in the course of his trade.  He  can be evicted under Section 13(1)(c).] [157C-D]      S.  Schneiders and Sons Ltd. v. Abrahams, [1925]  1  KB 301-followed.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition No.12541 of 1990.      From  the  Judgement and Order dated 21.8.1990  of  the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2677 and 4128 of 1983.      U.R.  Lalit, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V.D.  Khanna  for the Petitioner.      M.C.  Bhandare, V.N. Ganpule, Satish K.  Agnihotri  and Mrs. Suman B. Rastogi for the Respondent.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.  The shop premises belonging                                                        154 to  the  respondent-landlady   was  taken  on  rent  by  the petitioner  for business purposes.  The premises are  within the scope of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control  Act, 1947 (‘The Bombay Rent Act’).  The  petitioner has  been  carrying on business in sweet-meats  and  farsen. The  landlady  brought action to recover possession  of  the premises  under  Section  13(1)(c) on the  ground  that  the tenant has been convicted of using the premises.  It is  not in dispute that the tenant was convicted on three occasions, first  in  1968  for  selling  adulterated  Desi-butter  and second,  in  1972 for selling sugar-garlands  coloured  with meantanil  yellow  a  coaltar  dye  which  is  a  prohibited colouring agent.  In the second judgement of conviction,  it has  been stated that the tenant had admitted  two  previous convictions and in one of the cases he was sentenced to  six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.  All the convictions and sentences were under the Prevention of  Food Adulteration Act.      The  Bomaby  High Court has accepted the claim  of  the landlady and ordered eviction under Section 13(1)(c).      The  tenant seeks leave to appeal against the order  of the Bomaby High Court.  Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay  Rent Act reads:          "13(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained  in  the          Act,  but subject to the provisions of sections  15          and  15A, a landlord shall be entitled  to  recover

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

        possession   of  any  premises  if  the  Court   is          satisfied,          (c)  that the tenant or any persons  residing  with          the  tenant has been guilty of conduct which  is  a          nuisance   or   annoyance  to  the   adjoining   or          neighbouring  occupiers, or has been  convicted  of          using  the premises or allowing the premises to  be          used  for immoral or illegal purposes; or that  the          tenant   has  in  respect  of  the  premises   been          convicted  of  an offence of contravention  of  any          provision  of  clause (a) of  sub -section  (1)  of          section  394  or  of Section 394-A  of  the  Bombay          Municipal Corporation Act."                                         Underlining is ours Section  13(1)(c)  inter alia, provides  that  the  landlord shall  be entitled to recover possession of any premises  if the  Court  is  satisfied  that the  tenant  or  any  person residing  with the tenant has been guilty of conduct or  has been  convicted  of  using  the  premises  or  allowing  the premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes etc.                                                        155      Counsel  for  the tenant submits  that  the  expression "convicted  of  using  the  premises"  must  be  limited  to offences which involve ,the user of the premises and user of the premises must by itself be an offence under law.  By way of  illustration, reference was made to the Immoral  Traffic (Prevention)Act, 1956 and the Bomaby Prevention of  Gambling Act,  1887  whereunder the use of the premises  for  illegal purposes has been defined as an offence and punishable.   It is  only  such conviction, counsel contends  that  it  would expose  the tenant to the risk of ejectment  under  Section 13(1)(c).  It is  also argued that Section 13(1)(c) does not cover  non-residential  premises  and  it  covers  only  the residential premises.      We  will  consider  the  second  question  first.   The contention  is based on the term used in  clause(c),  namely "that the tenant or any person  residing with the tenant has been...." and it is said that the expression "residing  with the tenant" indicates that clause (c) is applicable only  to residential premises.  The essence of the submission is that business  premises are not used for residence.   A  Division Bench  ofthe  Bombay  High Court  in  a  separate  judgement connected   with   this   case   has   not   accepted   that interpretation.   It has expressed the view that clause  (c), covers equally residential and non-residential premises  and the expression "residing with the tenant" used in clause (c) only  indicates that the offence contemplated  in  clause(c) could be committed by the tenant or any person residing with tenant.  We concur with this view.  Section 13(1)(c) applies to  any premises.  Section 5(8) defines ‘premises’  to  mean amongst others, any building or part of  a  building let  or given on licence separately other than a farm building.   If clause (c) is not applicable to business premises, there  is no  other similar provision in the Bombay Rent Act  relating to the business premises.  The consequence would be that the tenant  in  business  premises could use  the  premises  for committing  any  offence  or he could  commit  nuisance  and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers and yet claim  that he is not liable to be evicted on that  grounds. Whereas,  the  tenant of residential premises would  not  be able to commit such offence without the penalty of eviction. Such  an interpretation would render the Section  vulnerable to  attack  under Article 14 of the Constitution.   We  must avoid such construction.  Section 13(1)(c), in our  opinion, covers both residential as well as non-residential premises.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    This  takes us to the more difficult question,  whether the  offence leading to conviction which exposes the  tenant to  the  risk  of  ejectment  should  involve  the  user  of premises, or is to enough if the tenant was                                                        156 convicted for an offence committed in the premises  although the  conviction is not of using the premises.   Counsel  for the  tenant  contends  thatthe Section  13(1)(c)  means  the former.   But  the  acceptance of  such  construction  would unreasonably  narrow  down the Section  defeating  the  very object  of  the provision, since there are very  few  crimes that  can  properly be so described and brought  within  its operation.  We therefore, reject the contention.  But at the same  time the expression "convicted of using the  premises" cannot  be  given too liberal construction so  as  to  cover every case or conviction of ,the tenant.  In this regard, we have  a useful guidance from the decision in  S.  Schneiders and  Sons Ltd. v. Abrahams, [1925]1 KB 301, where a  similar question  arose  for consideration.  There  the  tenant  was convicted of an offence under Section 33 of the Larceny Act, 1916  of receiving at the demised premises the  property  of the landlord well knowing the same to have been stolen.  The landlord  brought  an  action to recover  possession  of  the premises  under  Section 4 of the Rent  &  Mortgage  Interest Restrictions   Act,  1923.   Section  4  provided  that   no judgement  for the recovery of possession of any  house  to which the Act applies shall be given "unless the tenant..... has  been  convicted of using the premises or  allowing  the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose ....." Bankers   L.J.  explaining  the  scope  of  the   expression "convicted of using the premises" inter alia, observed  that the  said  expression cannot be given a  strictly  technical construction  and that would exclude so many offences  which would  seem  naturally  to fall within the  purview  of  the Section.   He  however, emphasised that it is  necessary  to show  that the tenant has taken advantage of his tenancy  of the  premises  and  of  the  opportunity  they  afford   for committing the offence.  He also dealt with the scope of the expression   "using  the  premises",  whether  it   requires something  more than a single act of user or  a  continuous, frequent or repeated use.  On this aspect, he said that  "it may be that the mere fact of a crime being committed on  the premises would not constitute a user of the premises by the tenant  for an illegal purpose; for example, if  the  tenant was convicted of an assault upon some one who happened to  be on the premises in the occupation of the tenant, and if that were    the   only   evidence,   I   doubt    whether    the tenant  could be said to have been convicted of  "using  the premises  for an......illegal purpose within the meaning  of Section  4".   But  if  the  tenant  used  the  premises  as coiner’s  den  or as a  deposit for stolen goods,  a  single instance  of such user seems to me quite enough  to  satisfy the language of the statute".  Scrutton, L.J. while agreeing with  the  above  views has added that  Section  4  was  not intended  to cover the conviction of a crime with which  the premises have nothing to do beyond merely being the scene of its  commission.  Atkin, L.J. has also reiterated the  above views.                                                        157      With  due  regard to these principles  and  giving  the matter the best consideration.  It seems to us that  Section 13(1)(c) was not intended to be a moral code of conduct  for the  tenant.   For each and every offence committed  at  the premises,  the  tenant   cannot be exposed to  the  risk  of eviction.   The crime .may be forced upon the tenant at  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

premises   by  third  parties.   There  may  be  casual   or incidental   crimes.   There  may  be   technical   offences connected with the trade or licence to trade.  There may  be crimes  where use of the premises has nothing to  do  except being  the  scene  of the offence.  All  such  cases  cannot satisfy  the  requirements  of  Section  13(1)(c).   It   is necessary  as  Bankers, L.J. has observed in  the  Schneiders case  that the tenant must take advantage of his  tenacy  of the  premises  and  of  the  opportunity  they  afford   for committing  the crime.  Only such crimes could  fall  within the  scope of Section 13(1)(c). However, there need  not  be continuous  or repeated user of the premises for  committing such  crimes.   In  the instant case, the  tenant  used  the premises  for carrying out illegal sale of adulterated  food along  with  his usual business in sweet meats  and  farsen. Indeed,  he  has used the premises  deliberately  and  taken advantage of his tenancy for committing the offences in the course  of  his trade. He  cannot,  therefore,  legitimately contend that he is not entitled to be evicted under  Section 13(1)(c).      In  this view of the matter, we dismiss this  petition, but we make no order as to costs. V.P.R.                                  Petition dismissed.                                                        158