BOORGU JAGADESHWARAIAH AND SONS Vs. PUSHPA TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Appeal No. 8466 of 1995

(2.) The landlord succeeded in the two Courts below on the ground that the non-residential building, which was said to be in his possession, was not sufficient and suitable to meet his requirements of opening a textile and cloth business since it was situated in a locality where the business of textile and cloth selling was not in vogue. The claim of the landlord was knocked down before the High Court on the basis of the decision in D. Devaji's case (1994 Supp (1) SCC 729) (supra) in which a two-member Bench of this Court has taken the view that when the landlord has a building in his possession the factors of suitability, convenience and sufficiency of accommodation in order to carry on the business are not relevant. Thus, the plea of the landlord that the non-residential building in his possession was not suitable to his business needs, was repelled on the factum that he owned a non-residential building, which was enough to non-suit him.

(3.) It has been pleaded on behalf of the unsuccessful landlord that in D. Devaji's case (supra) the interpretation put on the provision is too narrow and defeats the very purpose of the provision. It has also been contended that the same is in conflict with J. Pandu (AIR 1987 SC 857) and Dr. Saroj Kumar Das's case (AIR 1987 SC 2131) (supra).