ARYA SAMAJ SAGAR Vs. PINJAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave arising from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 26th Oct. 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 S. 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.

(2.) Section 12(f) of the aforesaid Act gives the landlord the right to evict on the grounds, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) 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. S. 12(h) on the other hand deals with the case where the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding 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 S. 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 1. This Court held that the case in question fell under Cl. (g) which is similar to Cl. (f) of the instant case before us of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, S. 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 question of his requiring the house bona fide 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 S. 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 sanction plan and came to the conclusion that the appellant had proved in this case all the need for expansion of the building of 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 construction of shops and let these out. There was no intention of the landlord-appellant of building 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 to examine whether S. 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).