MODERN TAILORING HALL Vs. H S VENKUSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave was granted in these appeals limited to the question whether after demolition and reconstruction of the building, the appellants-tenants have a right of re-entry.

(2.) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986 in its S. 21(1)(h) confers on the landlord the right to claim eviction of a building bona fide required for his own occupation and S. 21(1)(j) confers on him the right to seek eviction to have the building demolished and reconstructed, but subject to the right of re-entry of the tenant. These two rights are encircled with corresponding obligations inasmuch as under the former provision the landlord is required to enter the premises himself within the statutory period failing which the tenant has a right of re-entry, and in the latter provision, the landlord is required to give an undertaking so as to ensure observance of the terms of re-entry on reconstruction of the building. The present cases are such in which the landlord has sought eviction of the tenants under S. 21(1)(h) of the Act on the ground that he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation but after demolition and reconstruction. The point arising for consideration is whether the landlord's claim was rightly based under S. 21(1)(h) or was it founded under S. 21(1)(j)

(3.) The consistent view of the Karnataka High Court in a series of decisions starting from the case titled asSmt.Rohinibai v. Vishnumurty, ILR (1980) 1 Kant 340 is that the two provisions, i.e., S. 21(1)(h) and S. 21(1)(j) are mutually exclusive and that demolition and reconstruction of a premises by the landlord for his own use and occupation, after getting an order of eviction, clearly falls under Cl. (h) of S. 21(1) and not under Cl. (j). It has been viewed that the plea of the landlord for bona fide requirement, for his own use and occupation of the premises under S. 21(1)(h), would include the occupation of the premises after making any alteration or a new construction on securing an order of eviction. This extended meaning was given by the Karnataka High Court on the basis of a decision reported in Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth (1964) 8 SCR 1 : (AIR 1964 SC 1676), a decision by a three Member Bench of this Court. Identical provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947 were examined and it was held that the demolition of the existing building and subsequent erection of a new building were only intermediate steps in order to make the building fit for occupation by the landlord. A hitch was thus carved that till the new building was altered or reconstructed to the satisfaction of the landlord, his obligation to enter the premises within the statutory provided period got extended. It was also held that the provisions relating to demolition and reconstruction saddled with the obligation to provide to the tenant re-entry could not possibly apply to the case where the landlord reasonably and bona fidely requires the premises for his own occupation even if he had to priorly demolish the premises and erect a new building on it. And further, it was viewed that qualitatively the eviction under the provision, such as provided under S. 21(1)(j) of the Act presently in hand, would apply to cases where the landlord does not require the premises for his own occupation, but requires it for erecting a new building to be let out to the tenants. Thus, it is obvious that the Karnataka High Court has maintained the distinction between the two provisions sharply and has never let these provisions overlap with each other.