http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ARYA SAMAJ, SAGAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PINJAMAL & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1986

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1789            1986 SCR  (3) 514  1986 SCC  (4)   3        JT 1986   143  1986 SCALE  (2)238

ACT:      Madhya Pradesh  Accommodation  Control  Act,  1961,  s. 12(1)(f)-Eviction of  tenant on  ground  of  requirement  by landlord for additional accommodation -When arises.

HEADNOTE:      The landlord-appellant  running a  girls’ school. filed an eviction  suit against  the tenant,  the  predecessor-in- interest of  the respondent,  on the  ground that  it needed additional accommodation for the school.      The trial  Judge as well as the Appellate Court ordered eviction  under   s.  12(i)(f)   of   the   Madhya   Pradesh Accommodation Control  Act, 1961  holding that the object of the appellant-society  was to  get  the  building  back  for expansion of its activities and had proved the same.      The High  Court, however, in second appeal examined the sanctioned plan, held that the landlord’s claim for eviction was on the ground of reconstruction, and the series of shops shown in  the plan  were meant  to be let out to tenants and set aside  the order  of eviction  passed by  the two courts below.      Allowing the appeal to this Court, ^      HELD: l(i).  The order  of the High Court is set aside. The orders  of the  Additional District  Judge and the Trial Court are  restored with  the modification  that in case any part of  the building  is used  for shop or let out as shop, the first  option should  be given to the respondents and of that the  building must  be constructed  on the basis of the appended sanctioned plan. [517G; E]      1(ii). The  High Court fell into error in misconstruing the plan Ext. 4 and in holding that the landlord’s claim for eviction was on the ground of reconstruction. The High Court went on  to examine  whether s.  12(h) of  the Act  had been complied with. There was no such necessity 515 in view  of the  facts as  found by the two courts below. In any case,  in second  appeal the  High Court should not have interfered with such a question of fact. [517B-C]       2.  The case  of  the  landlord-appellant  is  clearly covered by  s.12(1)(f) of  the Madhya  Pradesh Accommodation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Control Act,  1961. The mere fact that the landlord intended to make  alterations in  the house  either on account of his sweet will  or on  account of  absolute necessity in view of the condition of the house, would not affect the question of his requiring  the house  bona fide  and reasonably  for his occupation, when  he had  proved his  need for occupying the house. [516E-F]      Ramniklal Pitambardas  Mehta  v.  Inderadaman  Amratlal Sheth [1964] 8 SCR p.1, followed.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2637 of 1977      From the  Judgment and  order dated  9.11.1976  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 223 of 1976.      Rameshwar Nath for the Appellants.      Y.K. Jain for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. This  is an  appeal by special leave arising  from the Judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya  Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 26th October, 1977. The landlord-appellant  filed  the  eviction  suit  against  the tenant, the  predecessor in interest of the respondents. The appellant runs  a girls’ school, being covered by one of its objects. It  needed additional  accommodation for  the  said purpose. The building was also in dilapidated condition. The learned trial  Judge as  well  as  Appellate  Court  ordered eviction  under   section  12  (f)  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh Accommodation Control  Act, 1961.  The respondents  were  in occupation of an old shed as a tenant in the said house.      Section 12 (f). Of the aforesaid Act gives the landlord the right to evict on the grounds, inter alia, as follows: 516           "that the  accommodation let  for  non-residential           purposes is  required bonafide by the landlord for           the purpose of continuing or starting his business           or  that  any  of  his  major  sons  or  unmarried           daughters if  he is  the owner  thereof or  of any           person for whose benefit the accommodation is held           and 13  that the  landlord or  such person  has no           other    reasonably    suitable    non-residential           accommodation of  his own in his occupation in the           city or town concerned."      Section 12  (g) deals  with  the  situation  where  the building has  become unsafe  or unfit and the landlord wants the premises for carrying out repairs. Section 12 (h) on the other hand  deals with  the case  where the accommodation is required  bonafide  by  the  landlord  for  the  purpose  of building or  re-building or  making thereto  any substantial additions or  alterations and  such additions or alterations cannot be  carried out  without  the  accommodation  in  the occupation of  tenant being  vacated. Similar  provision  in section 31 (1)(g) under the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates  Control Act,  1947 came  up  for  consideration before  this   Court  in   Ramniklal  Pitambardas  Mehta  v. Inderadaman Amratlal  Sheth, [1964]  8 SCR  p.1. This  Court held that  the case  in question fell under clause (g) which is similar  to clause  (f) of  the instant case before us of Madhya Pradesh  Accommodation Control  Act, section  12 (f). This Court further held that the mere fact that the landlord intended to  make alterations in the house either on account of his  sweet will  or on  account of  absolute necessity in view of  the condition  of the  house, would  not affect the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

question of  his requiring the house bonafide and reasonably for  his  occupation,  when  he  had  proved  his  need  for occupying the house. Nothing further need be proved. In this case, the  case of the landlord-appellant is clearly covered by section  12(1)(f). The  fact that  the building had to be reconstructed  for  the  said  purpose  is  irrelevant.  The learned trial  judge as  well as the learned appellate court read the sanctioned plan and came to the conclusion that the appellant had proved in this case all the need for expansion of the  building for  girls’ education  which was one of the objects of  the appellant  society. The  High Court,  in our opinion, misread  the sanctioned plan which is Ext. 4, which according to  the High  Court showed  in front  side of  the building abutting  the road,  a series  of shops  are to  be constructed. The High Court was of the view that these shops were meant  to be  let out to tenants. We are of the opinion that this was a misreading of the plan. These shops were not indicated as  shops to  be reconstructed,  but  as  existing building was  to be  reconstructed for the purpose of school there was no intention of construc- 517 tion of  shops and  let these out. There was no intention of the landlord-appellant  to build  for the purpose of letting it out.  The learned  trial judge as well as appellate judge held that  the object  was to  get  the  building  back  for expansion of  the activities  of the  appellant society. The High Court,  therefore, in  our opinion  fell into  error in misconstruing the  plan and  in holding  that the landlord’s claim for  eviction was  on the ground of reconstruction. In that view  of the  matter the High Court went on the examine whether section  12 (h)  of the  said Act  had been complied with. There  was no  such necessity, in view of the facts as found by the two courts below. In any case, in second appeal the High  Court should  not  have  interfered  with  such  a question of  fact. This  was unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of  the case and on the evidence on record and in view of the decision in Ramniklal’s case (supra).      Mr. Jain appearing for the tenant sought to urge before us that  the plan  indicated that the shops were intended to be reconstructed  in  the  new  plan  Shri  Rameshwar  Nath, Counsel for  the  appellant  assured  us  that  it  was  the intention of the society to reconstruct the building for the purpose of  running  the  school.  In  order  to  avoid  any apprehension, though  we allow  the appeal  and restore  the order of  the learned  appellate court  as well  as  learned trial court,  we make  it clear  that in case if any part of the building  is used  for shops  or let  out as  shops, the first option  should be given to the respondents. We further direct that the building must be constructed on the basis of the plan  sanctioned and  as appended in the records of this case. In view of the fact that the respondents were carrying on business  for quite long time, they should have some time to vacate.  We direct that the respondents should vacate the premises in  their occupation  by 31st  December,  1986  and handover the  same to  the appellant to enable the appellant to proceed  with construction.  The respondent  will file an undertaking on usual terms within a month from today.      The order of the High Court is set aside. The orders of the learned  Addl. District  Judge and  the trial  court are restored subject  to the  modifications indicated  above. We further direct  that after  obtaining the  possession of the premises from  the respondents, the appellant should proceed to construct  as quickly  as  possible.  In  the  facts  and circumstances of  the case  the parties  will pay  and  bear their own costs.

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

A.P.J.                                       Appeal allowed. 518