Rasik Auto Stores And Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(Record of Proceedings),SLP (C) No. 16221 of 1998, decided on November 10, 1998

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

V.N Ganpule, Senior Advocate (A.P Mayee and A.M Khanwilkar, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioners.

Judges

Justice S.B. Majmudar

Acts

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 10(3)(a)(iii)
Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns a challenge by the petitioners to the landlord-respondent’s claim for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. It is not in dispute that the suit premises are in a building where the respondent-landlord is already carrying on a clinic in an adjoining portion, and the asserted need is for expansion of that clinic. The Rent Controller and the appellate court recorded findings regarding the adequacy of the landlord’s existing accommodation, and those findings were accepted by the High Court. The present opinion addresses the petitioners’ contention against the maintainability of the landlord’s claim in light of Clause 13(3)(vi).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, a landlord’s occupation of any other premises of his own in the city/town automatically bars a claim for eviction/possession on the ground of bona fide requirement, irrespective of the size, quality, or suitability of that other accommodation.
Whether the matter required remand for further fact-finding in light of the precedent relied upon by the Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners’ sole contention was that, in light of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, the landlord’s possession/occupation of other premises of his own in the adjoining portion of the same building meant that the suit for possession based on bona fide requirement was liable to fail.
They relied on a literal reading of the proviso in Clause 13(3)(vi) (“provided that he is not occupying any other premises of his own in the city or town concerned”), contending that once it is shown the landlord occupies any other premises of his own in the city, the claim cannot be entertained.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. . (1998) 5 SCC 572	On a pari materia provision, the Court held that courts should not exclude consideration of the quality, size, and suitability of the landlord’s existing premises; ignoring these aspects would frustrate the purposes of the rent control legislation. In that case, proceedings were remanded to obtain findings on whether the landlord’s existing premises met the asserted need.	The Court treated this decision as directly answering (“repelled”) the petitioners’ literal-bar argument, indicating that the mere existence of other premises does not end the inquiry without assessing whether the existing premises adequately serve the landlord’s bona fide requirement. However, unlike the cited case, remand was held unnecessary here because factual findings on sufficiency were already recorded and accepted.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first acknowledged that the petitioners’ literal construction of Clause 13(3)(vi) would mean that if the landlord occupies any other premises of his own in the city, a claim for bona fide requirement “can never be entertained,” with nothing further required to be shown. The Court noted that this contention would have required “closer scrutiny” but for an existing three-Judge Bench decision of the Court.

Relying on Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co., which construed a pari materia provision under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the Court emphasized that the inquiry must include the quality, size, and suitability of the premises already available to the landlord; otherwise, the purpose of the legislation would be frustrated. The precedent demonstrated that the existence of some other non-residential premises does not automatically defeat a landlord’s claim if that premises does not meet the asserted need.

Applying that ratio to the present facts, the Court pointed to a “clear finding” by the Rent Controller and the appellate court—accepted by the High Court—that 300 sq. ft. available with the landlord in the building was insufficient for two doctors (the landlord and his wife), both practising doctors. Given this established factual finding on insufficiency, the Court held there was “no need for remand.” The ratio of the three-Judge Bench decision was held to “squarely” apply against the petitioners’ contention.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The petition failed and was dismissed.

The direct effect is that the petitioners did not succeed in defeating the landlord’s claim by relying solely on the landlord’s occupation of other premises in the same building/city. The Court treated the controlling precedent as requiring consideration of whether the landlord’s existing accommodation is sufficient and suitable for the claimed bona fide need; since the fact-finding on insufficiency was already in place and accepted by the High Court, no remand was ordered. The opinion applies existing Supreme Court authority and does not indicate that it sets any new precedent beyond that application.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Rasik Auto Stores And Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar And Another

1. 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)-(v)***

(vi) that the landlord needs the premises or a portion thereof, for the purpose of his bona fide occupation provided that he is not occupying any other premises of his own in the city or town concerned; or….”

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is right when he contends that if the above clause is literally read, it would indicate that the moment it is shown that the landlord is occupying any other premises of his own in the city, his suit for bona fide 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 the 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 a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. 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 in 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:

“8. (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 was a claim set up by the landlord 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.

3. In the facts of the present case, there is a clear finding recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate 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.

4. 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 stare in the face of the petitioners.

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

Court Masters

Rasik Auto Stores And Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Rasik Auto Stores And Others v. Navin V. Hantodkar And Another

Comments