GOVINDA PAI Vs. SARVOTHAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the landlord of a building let out on rental arrangement to the respondent in the revision. The landlord moved the Rent Control Court for eviction of the tenant under S.11(3) and S.11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The revision petitioner is the partner of a firm carrying on wholesale business in piece goods under the style 'K. N. G. Brothers' at Shertallai in a building taken on rent from the Muttom Church, Shertallai. That building is being acquired by the State under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. It was because of this circumstance that the petitioner claimed bona fide need for possession of the building let out to the respondent tenant. The landlord required the building for the purpose of carrying on the business of the firm of which be was a partner. The respondent is carrying on business in the building taken by him from the petitioner, in rationed articles and cement. According to the landlord the tenant either owns or is in possession of several buildings near about the building he is occupying as a tenant of the petitioner and any one of them would be reasonably sufficient for his business.

(2.) The Rent Control Court found that the petitioner's need was bona fide, but nevertheless held against the claim under S.11(3) of the Act since the court further found that the petitioner had failed to prove that it was for his own occupation that he needed the building The occupation by the firm was found to be not within the scope of the Section. All the same an order for eviction was passed under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act accepting the case of the landlord that the tenant had other buildings reasonably sufficient for his requirements in that town. The tenant as well as the landlord filed appeals before the appellate authority. The tenant's appeal was dismissed. The appeal by the landlord seeking eviction also on the ground that he bona fide needed the building for his own occupation was allowed. The tenant filed two Revisions against this order of the appellate authority. One was intended to be the revision against the order in his appeal and the other a revision against the order passed in the appeal by the landlord. The Revisional Court took the view that it was necessary for a partner of a firm seeking eviction of tenant from his building for the occupation of the firm to show that he was the managing partner and unless that was shown the landlord would not be entitled to seek eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. On the question of availability of other buildings the Revisional Court held that the building which had become available had not been shown to be reasonably sufficient for the business of the respondent. It is against this order of the Revisional Court that this Revision Petition has been moved by the landlord.

(3.) I will first consider the question of availability of S.11(3) of the Act to a landlord who seeks eviction for the purpose of occupation by a firm of which he is a partner S.11(3) enables a landlord to seek such eviction "if he bona fide seeds the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him". The latter part does not apply to the case of occupation by firm of which the landlord is a partner. Could it be said that when a person seeks possession of a building from his tenant for the purpose of occupation by a firm in which he is a partner he seeks the building for his own occupation or is the clause to be limited to occupation by him individually, i. e to a case where he carries on business by himself Partnership is an arrangement reached between persons to carry on a venture jointly, the parties agreeing to share the profits or losses. Could it be said that in such a case a person carries on his business when the business carried on is that of the partnership of which he is a partner Could it be said that he occupies the building either exclusively or along with others when he carries on a business in the building along with others The idea of exclusive occupation is not necessarily indicated by the term "for his own occupation" in S.11(3) of the Act. Even when a person carries on business as a partner of a firm he occupies the business premises along with his partners. The one exception to this could be a case where he does not have any hand in the conduct of the business, though he is a partner. A dormant or sleeping partner does not actively associate himself with the conduct of the business though he may contribute capital and share in the profits or losses. Such a person may not be occupying the premises where the business is carried on by the firm. But in other cases where partners are actively associated with and are concerned in the conduct of the business they occupy the business premises for the purpose of the firm's business and such occupation is of all those who carry on such business. Therefore within the meaning of the term "for his own occupation", occupation by a partner of a firm other than a dormant or sleeping partner would be comprehended.