http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALYAN MAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/10/1984

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  139            1985 SCR  (1) 945  1984 SCC  (4) 447        1984 SCALE  (2)641

ACT:      Madhya Pradesh  Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 12 (1)  (f) and (h)- An order made in eviction proceeding in which  landlord   established  that   he  bonafide  required premises for  his occupation is one under section 12 (1) (f) and not under section 12 (1) (h).

HEADNOTE:      The  respondent-landlord   sought   eviction   of   the appellants-tenants  under  section  12  (1)  of  the  Madhya Pradesh Accommodation  Control Act,  1961 on the main ground that  the   landlord  bonafide  required  the  premises  for locating  his   gold  and  silver  ornaments  factory  after demolishing and  reconstructing  the  building.  The  courts below  found  that  the  requirement  of  the  landlord  was bonafide and  ordered eviction  of the tenants under section 12 (l)  (f) and (h) of the Act. In these appeals the tenants contended that  since the eviction ordered was under section 12 (l)  (h), section  18 of the Act was attracted and it was obligatory  on   the  part   of  the   landlord  to  provide accommodation of  equal extent  to the  tenants in  the  new building to be constructed by him.      Dismissing the appeals, ^      HELD: In  Ramnilal P. Mehta v. Indradaman Amritlal this Court observed  that once  the landlord  establishes that he bonafide requires  the premises  for his  occupation, he  is entitled to  recover possession  of it from the tenant under the provisions  of sub-clause  (g) of  section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House.  Rates Control Act, 1947 irrespective  of the  fact whether  he would occupy the premises without  making any alterations or after making tho necessary alterations. [948B-C]      Ramnilal P.  Mehta v.  Indradaman Amritlal  Sheth,  AIR 1964 SC 1676, referred to.      Section 13  (1) (g)  of the  Bombay  Rents,  Hotel  and Lodging  House,  Rates  Control  Act,  1947  corresponds  to section 12  (1) (f)  of  tho  Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation Control Act. [948A]      Applying the  above  principle  to  the  facts  of  the instant case,  though the Courts below have passed the order of eviction under section 12 (1) (f) and (h) the Court is of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the opinion  that the  order of eviction is based really and substan- 946 tially only  under section  12 (1)  (f) of the Act. The fact that section  12 (1)  (h) is  also mentioned in the order of the Court  below does  not make the order of eviction purely one under  that section,  for the main ground of requirement of  the   landlord  is  bonafide  personal  requirement  for locating his proposed factory for the manufacture of gold or silver  ornaments.  Therefore  there  is  no  case  for  the application of  section 18 to the facts of the present case. [947F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 750-53 of 1982.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  3rd September,  1981 of  the Madhya  Pradesh High Court in S.A. Nos. 249, 251-253 of 1980.                             WlTH                Civil Appeal No. 3357 of 1982.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the 24th August, 1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 311 of 1982.      A.K. Sen,  R.P. Singh Suman Kapoor. D.S. Mehra and R.K. Jain, tor the Appellants in C.A s. 750-53 of 1982.      P.K. Jain, for the Appellants in CA. 3357/82.      U.R. Lalit.  Mrs. Suneeta  Kriplani, Ashok  Mahajan and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the court was delivered by      VARDARAJAN, J.  These appeals  by special  leave are by the tenants  whose eviction  has been  ordered  by  all  the courts below  under section 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation  Control Act,  1961 on the ground that the respondent  landlord requires  the premises bonafide for the purpose  of having his gold and silver ornaments factory after demolishing  the present building and putting up a new building at  the place. The tenants were carrying on various kinds of  business in  the premises.  Their defence was that the landlord  has other  alternative accommodation  where he could locate  his proposed  factory and that his requirement is not  bonafide. The  courts  below  have  found  that  the alternative accommodation  alleged by  the appellants  to be available to  the landlord  is really  a farm house which is used for  the residential  purpose, namely  as accommodation for the farm servants of the 947 landlord and  it is situated about these miles away from the town and  near a burial ground in a lonely place and that it is also  not a  suitable  place  where  a  factory  for  the manufacture of gold and silver ornaments could be carried on without risk  to life and property. As regards the ground of bonafide requirement,  the courts  below have found that the requirement of  the  landlord  is  bonafide  and  they  have ordered eviction  of the appellants under section 12 (1) (f) (h) of the Act.      Mr.  A.K.  Sen,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants contended  before   us  that  alternative  accommodation  is available and  that it is not possible to accept the finding of the  courts below  that it  is not  suitable. After going through the  judgment of the first Appellate Court which has dealt with  this question  in depth we agree with the courts below that  the  alternative  accommodation  alleged  to  be

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

available to  the landlord  is really a farm house where the farm servants  of the  landlord are accommodated and that it is not  suitable for  the purpose  for  which  the  landlord requires accommodation.      Mr. Sen  submitted that  the eviction  ordered is under section 12 (1) (h) of the Act and that section is of the Act is attracted  and it  is  obligatory  on  the  part  of  the landlord to  provide accommodation  of equal  extent to  the tenants in  the new  building to  be constructed by him. The first Appellate  Court has observed in its judgment that the order of  eviction is  sought on  the  main  ground  of  the bonafide requirement  of the landlord. Therefore there is no case for  the application  of section 18 to the facts of the present case.  Though the courts below have passed the order of eviction  under section  12 (l) (f) and (h) we are of the opinion that  the order  of eviction  is  based  really  and substantially only  under section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. The fact that section 1 2(1) (h) is also mentioned in the orders of the  courts below  does not  make the  order of  eviction purely one  under that  section,  for  the  main  ground  of requirement of the landlord is bonafide personal requirement for locating  his proposed  factory for  the manufacture  of gold and  silver ornaments.  A case  more or less similar on facts had  come up before this Court in Ramnilal P. Mehta v. Indradaman Amritlal Sheth which arose from proceedings taken under the  Bombay Rents,  Hotel  and  Lodging  House,  Rates Control Act  (57 of  1947). There  the eviction  was  sought under section 13(1) (g) and 13 (1) (hh) of that Act. 948 Section 13(1)  (g) of that Act corresponds to section 12 (1) (f) of  the Madhya  Pradesh Accommodation  Control  Act  and Section 13(1) (hh) of that Act corresponds to section 12 (1) (g) namely  that the  building  is  required  for  effecting either repairs  or alterations.  This Court  has observed in that  case  that  once  the  landlord  establishes  that  he bonafide requires  the premises  for his  occupation, he  is entitled to  recover possession  of it from the tenant under the  provisions  of  sub-clause  (g)  of  section  (13)  (1) irrespective  of  the  fact  whether  he  would  occupy  the premises without  making any alterations or after making the necessary alterations.      Though the facts of that case are slightly different in that the  requirement was  for occupation  after making some alterations where  as in the present case the requirement is for locating  the landlord’s  factory after  demolishing and re-constructing the  building, the  principle deducible from that decision  would apply  to the facts of even these case. We agree  with Mr.  U.R.  Lalit,  learned  counsel  for  the respondent landlord  that the  order of  eviction  is  based mainly under  section 12(1) (f) of the Act and that from the mere fact that section 12(1)(h) also is added would not make the order of eviction only one under section 12(1)(h) of the Act and  section 18  of the  Act will not be attracted. This fact was  not raised  in the  courts. below,  perhaps due to proper undertaking  of this  position. For these reasons the appeals fail  and are  dismissed but under the circumstances of the case without costs. H.S.K.    Appeal dismissed. 949