A S RUBEN Vs. NARAYAN MORESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in I revision against the decision of the District Judge, North Satara, holding that Explanation a (a) to Section 13(1)(g), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was 'ultra vires' and void; and the learned District Judge came to hold that under the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant, and he went to live in the premises as a tenant in 19-11. The opponent, who is a landlord, purchased ths property on 23-6-1947, and he filed a suit for ejectment against the applicant. One of the grounds urged by him was that he required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The learned Judge held the requirements of the landlord established, but came to the conclusion that as the landlord had purchased the property after 1-1-1947, by reason of Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(g), he was not entitled to eject the tenant. Thereupon he dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bona fide, but came to the conclusion that Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(g) of the Act contravened Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and therefore was void, and because of that, the landlord was entitled to possession under Section 13(1)(g), and passed a decree in his favour.

(3.) The Act with which we are dealing was passed in order to control the law relating to rents and evictions, and the main purpose of the Act obviously is to extend to the tenant the utmost protection. The Legislature realised the shortage of houses in the Slate of Bombay and therefore put this legislation on the statute look. Now, Section 13(1)(g) entitles the landlord to recover possession from his tenant if he requires the premises reasonably and bona fide for occupation by himself or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held, and it will be noticed that the Act of 1947 gave a further protection to the tenant inasmuch as by Sub-clause (2), eyen though a landlord may establish his requirements, the tenant would still be protected if the Court came to the conclusion, on a consideration of a balance of convenience, that the ejectment would result in greater hardship to the tenant than to the landlord. The Act of 1947 gave a further protection to the tenant, and that was contained in the Explanation, and the Explanation is in the following terms: