CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL SHAH Vs. SHANTILAL CHHAGANLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application raises an interesting question of construction of sec. 13(1) (hh) read with sub-sec. (3-A) of the said section of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The opponent-original plaintiff was the owner of two shops bearing Gram Panchayat Nos. 630 and 631 situated in village Thasra (Shethwada) District Kaira. The plaintiff was doing business in the shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. 630. The shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. 631 was rented by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff was residing as a lessee in a house owned by one Chimanlal Acharatlal. The plaintiff received a notice from his landlord asking him to vacate the premises. The plaintiff therefore wanted to demolish both the shops and reconstruct a new building for the purpose of his residence. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the immediate purpose of demolition for erecting a new building thereon. As the defendant did not part with the possession of the suit premises the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Dakor for possession of the suit premises on various grounds including the ground that he bona fide required the premises for demolition and erection of a new building with a storey for his residence. The suit was resisted by the defendant who denied that the plaintiff required the shop for the purpose of reconstruction and for his residence. He contended that the suit was filed for harassing and preventing him from doing his business. Various other contentions were raised but we are not concerned with those contentions in this revision application. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff was governed by the provisions of sec. 13(1)(g) of the Act and as the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in 1966 he was not entitled to a decree under the provisions of sec. 13(1)(g) of the Act. The learned trial Judge therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 289 of 1968 in the District Court at Nadiad. The appeal was heard by the learned District Judge Nadiad who came to the conclusion that the case was governed by the provisions of sec 13(1)(hh) of the Act and as the plaintiff satisfied the provisions of sub-sec. (3-A) of sec. 13 of the Act he was entitled to a decree and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It is against this judgment and decree that this revision application has been filed.

(2.) Now there is no dispute before me that the case of the plaintiff falls under the provisions of sec. 13(1)(hh) of the Act. The finding of the appellate Judge that the case of the plaintiff is governed by the provisions of sec. 13(1)(hh) of the Act is rightly not challenged before me. Mr. Jani appearing for the petitioner contended that the suit premises consist of shop only that is a business premises and the provisions of sec. 13(1)(hh) read with sub-sec. (3-A) of the Act cannot apply to premises entirely used for business purposes and the plaintiff therefore was not entitled to a decree of possession on this ground. The argument of Mr. Jani was that under the provisions of sub-sec. 3-A of sec. 13(1) of the Act the landlord has to give an undertaking that the new building to be erected by him shall contain not less than two times the number of the residential tenements and not less than two times the floor area contained in the premises sought to be demolished. This particular condition requires that the landlord should erect a new building in such a manner that it shall contain not less than two times the number of residential tenements. In the present case the premises is entirely a business premises and therefore the undertaking requiring that the new building must contain not less than two times the number of the residential tenements could never be fulfilled. The argument was that if this condition could not be fulfilled the proper interpretation of the provisions of sec. 13(1)(hh) read with sub-sec. (3-A) is that the said provisions do not apply to the premises the use of which is made entirely for business purposes.

(3.) In order to appreciate this argument it is necessary to note that under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant as soon as a landlord terminates the tenancy by one of the modes available to him under sec. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act except by forfeiture he becomes entitled to recover possession and the tenant has no right to resist the claim for possession. Due to the shortage of accommodation the legislature passed the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act of 1947. Sec. 13(1) restricts the ordinary rights of the landlord to recover possession of the premises let by him to the tenant. Sec. 13 of the Act provides the grounds on which a landlord can eject a tenant. The various grounds for ejectment mentioned in the section are such which reasonably justify the ejectment of a tenant in the exercise of general right to eject his tenant. There is therefore no reason why the restrictions not mentioned in the ground be read into them.