RASIK AUTO STORES AND ORS.versusNAVIN V. HANTODKAR AND ANR.

                   RASIK AUTO STORES AND ORS.                                     A
                                       v.
                  NA VIN V. HANTODKAR AND ANR.

                           NOVEMBER 10, 1998

       [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]                                 B

      C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(vi)-Scope of
Landlord-Suit for eviction against tenant-Ground ofbonafide requirement-
Tenant 's plea that landlord is having other premises of his own in the city-
Maintainability of-Landlord and his wife both practising doctors-Suit C
premises situated in a building where in other part the respondent-landlord
was carrying on his clinic-For expansion of the said clinic he require the
suit premises-Finding recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the
appellate fourt that the accommodation available with the respondent-
landlord in the building was insufficient for two doctors as the landlord- D
Finding arrived at on facts accepted by High Court-Held there was no need
to remand the matter-Tenant's petition dismissed

      Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co., (1998) S
sec 572, referred to.
                                                                                  E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16221 ofl998

      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.98 of the Bombay High Court
in L.P.A. No. 33of1997.
                                                                                  F
      V.N. Ganpule (A.P. Mayee) and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Petitioners.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      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. & Berar Rent     G
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 :-

            "13. (3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied-    H
                                      629
    630                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           (i)

            (ii)

            (iii)

            (iv)
B
            (v)

            (vi) that the lanlord needs the premises or a portion thereof, for the
            purpose of his bonafide occupation provided that he is not occupying
            any _other premises of his own in the city or town concerned; or"
c
           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
D   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
E   required closer scrutiny but for the fact that there is a decision of the 3-Judge
    Bench of this Court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading
    Co., [I 998] 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
F   directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building in case
    it is any other non-residential building, 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,
G   as under:-

                "That the aspects of quality, size and suitability of the building
            have been totally out of consideration by the courts below. We think
            this would frustrate the purposes of the Act. Here was a claim set up
            by the landlord that the non-residential premises he owned did not
H           serve the purpose of his need of setting up a textile and cloth business
              RASIKAUTO STORESv. NAVJNV.HANTODKAR                           631
        and that the need could only be met in seeking eviction of the tenant      A
        from premises sought."

Accepting the said contention, this Court remanded the proceedings for
getting a finding on this aspect.

      In the facts of the present case, there is a clear finding recorded by the   B
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.

      In view of this, finding arrived at on facts and accepted by the High        C
Court, in our view, no need for remand would arise. The ratio of the aforesaid
decision would squarely stare in the face of the petitioners.

      In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.

T.NA.                                                       Petition dismissed.    D