RASIK AUTO STORES Vs. NAVIN V HANTODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(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. and 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:-

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners is 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 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 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 and 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 buildings, 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:-

(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.