Holding

Approval or permission from the local or competent authority must be obtained and pleaded at the time of filing the eviction petition; otherwise the petition is barred.

Summary

The Board of Management of H.S.I. Said Mosque (landlord) sought to evict tenant Kandaswamy from a vacant plot in Bangalore under Section 21(1)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming the land was needed for a new building. The trial court initially granted eviction, but the Karnataka High Court set aside that order and later allowed eviction, holding that the landlord need not have prior approval from a local authority at the time of filing. The Supreme Court examined whether such approval is a condition precedent for filing an eviction petition. It held that the landlord must plead, and must have, an order of approval or permission from the local/competent authority at the date of filing, as this forms part of the cause of action. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the trial court’s dismissal of the eviction petition was restored. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to each party.

Issues considered

Whether approval or permission of a local or competent authority for erection of a new building is a condition precedent to filing an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961s. 21(1)(i)

Subjects

evictionrent controlKarnataka Rent Control ActSection 21landlordtenantlocal authority approvalcondition precedentstatutory interpretation

Judgment

KANDASWAMY A
v.
Bd. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.I. SAID MOSQUE

MARCH 22, 2001

[D.P. MOHAPA'IRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] B

Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 :

Section 21( 1)(1)--Scope, object and interpretation of-Necessary condi-
tions to be established by landlord.
c
Landlord-Eviction of tenant-Application by landlord-Ground-
Purpose of construction of new building-Rejection of application on the
ground that pe1mission for erection of new building by local authority or
competent authority was necessary-On appeal High Court set aside the order
of trial court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held impugned order of High D
Court was not sustainable-The landlord has to plead in the eviction petition
that the new building for construction of which he is seeking eviction of the
tenant from the land has been approved or pennitted by a local authority or
other competent authority-The approval or permission of a local authority or
other competent authority forms a part of the cause of action for filing an
application for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 21( 1)(1)-The use of the E
"' expression "has approv,d or pennitted" leaves no manner of doubt that
such an order by a competent authority must be with the landlord on the
date of presentation of the petition for eviction of the tenant-It may not
be necessary for the landlord to annex a copy of the order passed by the
local authority or competent authority but a statement to that effect has to be F
made in the petition-The bona fide purpose in insisting on an order
approving or permitting the landlord to erect a new building on the new
land is to extend the protection to the tenant against eviction in case the
landlord merely wishes to construct a building but has not taken steps for
obtaining necessary permission/approval by the local authority or other com-
G
petent authority concerned-The provision is also intended lo take care of the
situation of long time lag between the filing ofthe petition for eviction and grant
of approval/permission by the local authority or other competent authority
concerned.

Statutory Interpretation : H
677
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.

A Statute-Interpretation of-Statute couched in clear and unambiguous
language-Court should give meaning to plain words ofSection-External aid
should not be taken.
•
Kewal Singh v. Smt. Lajwant~ (1980] 1 SCC 290 and Dinanath and Anr.
v. Gopalkrishna (dead) by Lrs., [1990] Supp. SCC 767, referred to.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.99 of the Kamataka High
Court in H.R.R.P. No. 5238 of 1991.

c K. V. Viswanathan, Atul Kumar Sinha and K. V. Venkatararnan for the
Appellant.

S.K. Dholakia, Atul Y. Chitale, Rakesh Sinha and Suchitra Atul Chitale
for the Respondent. ..
D The Order of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.

The decision in this appeal rests on the interpretation of Sec. 2l(l)(i)
of the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
w
The question to be considered is whether approval or permission of the local )'
E
authority or other competent authority for erection of a new building is a
condition precedent for filing an application by the landlord for eviction of
the tenant under the said provision.

Being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 6th August, 1999 of the
F High Court of Kamataka in House Rent Revision Petition (HRRP) No. 5238/
91 the tenant filed this appeal by special leave assailing the said judgment/
order. The respondent, Board of Management, Haji Sri Ismail Said Mosque, +
represented by its Secretary, is the landlord of the premises in question which
is a piece of vacant land bearing site No. 60 in the city of Bangalore The
landlord sought eviction of the tenant on several grounds including the
G
ground under Sec. 2l(l)(i) which provides for eviction of a tenant for the
purpose of constructing a new building. The grounds other than the one
mentioned above are not in dispute in this proceeding. .., ~

The !Vth Additional Judge of Small Causes ('the trial court' for short)
H by the order dated 10th February, 1989, allowed the petition for eviction. On
KANDASWAMY '· Bd. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.l. SAID MOSQUE [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 679

the revision petition filed by the tenant the High Court set aside the order A
-.( of the trial court by the judgment/order dated 9.2.1990 and remanded the case
to him for fresh disposal. After remand, the trial court on reappraisal of the
evidence on records, dismissed the petition for eviction vide the order passed
on 22.7.1991. Challenging the said order, the landlord filed the revision
petition under Section 50 of the Act which was allowed by the High Court
B
by the judgment/order dated 6.8.1999 and a decree for eviction of the tenant
was passed on the ground provided in Sec. 21(1)(i) of the Act. The said
judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.

The main thrust of the submissions made by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan,
learned counsel for the appellant is that the landlord did not have any order c
of local authority or other competent authority approving or permitting him
to build on the vacant land of which eviction of the tenant ~as sought. No
such order of approval or permission had been produced before the trial court
till 25th June, 1990 when the proceeding was pending before him after
remand by the High Court. In the circumstances, submitted the learned
counsel for the appellant, the statutory condition precedent provided under
D
Sec 2J(l)(i) was not satisfied in the case and therefore the eviction petition
had been rightly dismissed by the trial court; the High Court erred in
i
interfering with the order passed by the trial court.

- ~
Per contra, Shri S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent contended that an order of a local authority or other competent
E

authority granting permission or according approval for construction on the
site is not required before filing an eviction petition. It is sufficient compli-

• ance with the statutory provision if such order is produced before the order/
decree for eviction is passed by the trial court. Therefore, the High Court
rightly set. asid~ the order passed by the trial court.
F

-+ On the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties the
question formulated earlier arises for determination.

The provisions in Section 21(1) and Section 21(l)(i) reads as follows:
G
"21. Protection of tenants against eviction - (I) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no
'if order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall
be made by any Court or .other authority in favour of the landlord
against the tenant; H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A Provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make an
order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of
the following grounds only, namely. - ....

xxx xxx xxx

B (I) that where the premises are land, such land is reasonably and bona
fide required by the landlord for the erection of a new building which
a local authority or other competent authority has approved or
permitted him to build thereon; or" "
In order to establish a case under Section 2l(l)(i), the criteria to be
c proved are :

(i) the premises must be land;

(ii) such land is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord )'
for erection of a new building; and
D
(iii) for construction of which the local authority or other competent
authority has approved or permitted the landlord to build on the
land;

E
Each of the aforementioned elements is to be established by the
landlord who seeks eviction of the tenant from the land for erection of a new
1 -
building on it. The position is well accepted that.the Rent Control Act is a
piece of social legislation and is meant mainly to protect the tenants from
frivolous evictions. This Court in the case of Kewal Singh v. Smt. Lajwanti,
[1980] 1 SCC 290, observed at page 298 as under :
F
" ..... Before discussing the relevant provisions of the Act it may be
necessary to observe that the Rent Control Act is a piece of social
legislation and is. meant mainly to protect the tenants from frivolous
evictions. At the same time, in order to do justice to the landlords and
to avoid placing such restrictions on their right to evict the tenant as
G to destroy their legal right to property certain salutary provisions have
been made by the legislature which give relief to the landlord. In the
absence of such a legislation a landlord has a common law right to
evict the tenant either on the determination of the tenancy by efflux 1'
of time or for default in payment of rent or other grounds after giving
H notice under the Transfer of Property Act. This broad right has been
KANDASWAMYv. Bd. OF MANAGEMENT, ILS.l. SAID MOSQUE [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.) 681

curtailed by the rent control legislation with a view to give protection A
to the tenants having regard to their genuine and dire needs. While
the rent control legislation has given a number of facilities to the
tenants, it should not be construed so as to destroy the limited relief
which it seeks to give to the landlord also ....... "

This Court, in the case of Dinanath and Anr. v. Gopalakrishna (Dead)
B
by Lrs., [1990] Supp. SCC 767, construing the provision under Section
2l(I)(i) held that the expressions 'reasonably' and 'bonafide' require more
than mere financial capacity and the sanction of the authorities. These two
expressions must be understood with reference to the evidence adduced by
the landlord as to the reasonableness and the bona fide character of his c
requirements. In a case where a piece of vacant land in occupation of the
tenant is required by the landlord for construction of a new building his
'reasonable' and 'bona fide' requirement must be established irrespective and

" independent of any sanction he may have obtained from the local authority.
This Court further observed that the landlord has obtained the necessary
sanction of the local authority and that he is financially capable of construct-
D
ing a building will not by themselves mean that his requirements are
reasonable and bona fide. Although his financial capacity may be one of the
elements which may be taken into account, that by itself, would not be
.- sufficient to establish the reasonableness and the bona fide character of his
't requirements. E

The principle is well settled that while interpreting a provision of a
statute which is couched in clear and unambiguous language, the Court should
give meaning to the plain words of the Section and no external aid is to be
taken for the purpose. On a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2l(l)(i)
F
it is clear that the landlord has to plead in the eviction petition that the new
building for construction of which he is seeking eviction of the tenant from
the land has been approved or permitted by a local authority or other
competent authority. This position is clear from the words "a new building
which a local authority or other competent authority has approved or permit-
ted him to build thereon". The provision read in its entirety clearly shows G
that the approval or permission of a local authority or other competent

., ~
authority forms a part of the cause of action for filing an application for
eviction of the tenant under Sec. 2l(l)(i). The same expressions are repeated
in clause (m) of Section 21(1) which deals with a case where the premises
are land in the nature of garden or grounds appurtenant to a building or part H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A of a building such land is required by the landlord for the erection of a new
residential building. There are also the words; "which a local authority has
approved or pennitted him to build thereon...", which is required to be pleaded
and proved by the landlord. The bona fide purpose in insisting on an order
approving or pennitting the landlord to erect a new building on the new land
is to extend the protection to the tenant against eviction in case the landlord
B
merely wishes to construct a building but has not taken steps for obtaining
necessary pennission/approval by the local authority or other competent
authority concerned. The provision is also intended to take care of the ):
situation of long time lag between the filing of the petition for eviction and
grant of approval/pennission by the local authority or other competent
c authority concerned. It is our considered view that the provision in Section
21(1)(i) read and interpreted, as noted above, will alone serve the object and
purpose of the statute.

The purpose behind the insistence on the order of approval or pennis-

D
sion by a local authority or a competent authority before filing the eviction
petition may be to leave no discretion with the trial court to consider the
"
eviction petition in a case where the landlord has not even approached the
coinpetent authority for sanction of the proposed new building for which he
has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant. By not vesting any discretion

E
with the trial court in such. case the legislature has made it clear that it is
only after the landlord gets an order granting pennission or approval for
constructing the new building he should approach the trial court for eviction
1 -
of the tenant. Section 21 of the Act only enumerates the grounds on which
the authority can pass an order of eviction against a tenant The use of the
expression "has approved or pennitted" leaves no manner of doubt that such
F an order by a competent authority must be with the landlord on the date of
presentation of the petition for eviction of the tenant. It may not be necessary
for the landlord to annex a copy of the order passed by the local authority
or competent authority but a statement to that effect has to be made in the
+
petition. If the contention raised by Mr. Dholakia is accepted and it is held
that a petition for eviction cannot be thrown out on the ground since no order
G of approval or grant of pennission by a local authority or a competent
authority is necessary when the petition for eviction is filed, then a part of
the section will be rendered redundant. Such an interpretation cannot be
accepted. If the legislature intended that production of such an order at any .,. ~

stage of the proceeding before a decree or order for eviction is passed would
H be sufficient compliance of the provision then it would not have used the
KANDASWAMY v. Bd. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.I. SAID MOSQUE [D.P. MOHAPATRA, !.] 683

expression "has approved or permitted him to build thereon". A
In that view of the matter, the High Court was in error in setting aside
the order passed by the trial court rejecting the eviction petition holding that
filing of the order granting approval or permission by a local authority .or
other competent authority is not a mandatory statutory requirement for filing
a petition for eviction under Section 2l(l)(i) of the Act. The judgment/order B
passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment/order passed by the
Karnataka High Court on 6th August, 1999 in House Rent Revision Petition
(HRRP) No. 5238 of 1991 is set aside and the judgment/order passed by
the !Vth Additional Judge of Small Causes Court on 22nd July 1991 in
c
H.R.C. No. 10646/86 is restored. Parties to bear their respective costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

D