http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RASIK AUTO STORES & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAVIN V HANTODKAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/06/1998

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R We   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. The said provision reads as under :- "13.(3)  If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied. (i)......... (ii)......... (iii)......... (iv)......... (v)......... (vi)That 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. Learned  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

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

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. In the 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 doctors. In  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. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.