Important Point
Grounds mentioned in clause (g) is couched in a language to provide emphasis to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord; genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need.

Headnote:(i) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Section 13(1)(g)-Bona fide requirement for own use-Ground in clause (g) couched in a language to provide emphasis to genuineness of requirement of landlord-Genuineness of requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord-No warrant for presuming landlord’s need is not bona fide-In appropriate cases Court can presume that landlord’s requirement is bona fide and put contesting tenant to burden to show requirement is not bona fide.
       Held : The grounds mentioned in clause (g) is couched in a language to provide emphasis to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord by using the words “reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord”. In fact both terms (reasonably and bona fide) are complimentary to each other in the context, for, any unreasonable requirement is not bona fide. Vice-versa can also be spelt that if the requirement has to be bona fide it must necessarily be reasonable also. But when the legislature employed the two terms together the message to be gathered is that the requirement must be really genuine from any reasonable standard. All the same, genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. (Para 7)
       When a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation there is no doubt he has to prove it. But there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bona fide. The statute enjoins that the court should be satisfied of his requirement. So the court would look into the broad aspects and if the court feels any doubt about the bona fides of the requirement it is for the landlord to clear such doubts. Even in a case where the tenant does not contest or dispute the claim of the landlord the court has to look into the claim independently albeit landlord’s burden gets lessened by such non-dispute. In appropriate cases it is open to the court to presume that the landlord’s requirement is bona fide and put the contesting tenant to the burden to show how the requirement is not bona fide. (Para 8)
       (ii) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Section 13(1)(g)-Bona fide requirement for own use-Landlord Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering - Seeking eviction on ground that he wanted building to start business of electric goods-Lower courts found that requirement bona fide and eviction ordered-High Court observing that landlord had not proved that had the know-how to do such a business held landlord failed to prove bona fides of his claim-Whether sustainable? - No -To say any venture of a person in business field without acquiring past experience reflects his lack of bona fides is a fallacious and unpragmatic approach.
       Held : Learned single Judge opted to interfere with the fact finding only on the premise that in his opinion “if the landlord is really in a position to commence the business one of the ingredients that has to be established by the landlord is that he possesses the know-how necessary for doing the business.” (Para 11)
       If a person wants to start new business of his own it may be to his own advantage if he acquires experience in that line. But to say that any venture of a person in the business field without acquiring past experience reflects lack of his bona fides is a fallacious and unpragmatic approach. Many a business have flourished in this country by leaps and bounds which were started by novice in the field; and many other business ventures have gone haywire despite vast experience to the credit of the propounders. The opinion of the learned single Judge that acquisition of sufficient know-how is a pre-condition for even proposing to start any business, if gains approval as a proposition of law, is likely to shatter the initiative of young talents and deter new enterpreneurs from entering any field of business or commercial activity. Experience can be earned even while the business is in progress. It is too pedantic a norm to be formulated that “no experience no venture.” That apart, appellant is not a total novice in the field of dealings in electrical equipment. The fact that the discipline in his academic specialization was Electrical Engineering is quite indicative of some knowledge he has in the subject, though a business in such commodities may have different phases. Learned single Judge seems to have written him off as a person totally unfamiliar with any transaction in electrical goods. Such an angle is not a charitable view towards the landlord. At any rate there may be differing views for different people on how to start a business. The High Court has committed jurisdictional error in upsetting a fact finding merely on the individual view held by the learned Judge about a business venture. We have no doubt that reversal of the appellate court order on the above ground is unsupportable in law and hence is liable to be interfered with. We do so. (Paras 12 & 13)

Judgment

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. This litigation, even by now a quarter of a century old, shows fortune fluctuations as between a landlord and his tenant. The latest gainer is the tenant when the High Court of Bombay saved him from the peril of eviction. It is now the turn of the landlord and hence he challenged the judgment by filing this appeal by special leave.

3. In the year 1975, appellant-landlord spread his net so wide with multi-spoked grounds, as to catch the tenant by an order of eviction on the expectation that at least one of the grounds would click and the tenant could be evicted from a shop room situated at Solapur (Maharashtra). But the trial Court found none of the grounds in his favour and consequently non-suited him. However, the appellate court, after testing all the grounds employed by the landlord, found all of them but one, unsubstantiated. The one on which appellate court favoured the landlord was the ground envisaged in Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Resultantly the appellate court granted a decree for eviction with a rider that the tenant need vacate the premises only within four months. The appellate court passed the judgment on 30.8.1982.

4. The tenant very soon filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in challenge of the decree for eviction and got it stayed. It took 15 long years for the High Court to dispose of the writ petition as per the impugned judgment. A single judge of the High Court interfered with the finding on facts and held that the landlord has failed to prove the bona fides of his claim for requirement of the building to start a business therein. Learned Single Judge observed that the landlord has not proved that he has the know-how to do such a business.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court adopted an erroneous view that a man can think of starting a new business only if he has experience in that business field. Alternatively learned counsel contended that the High Court has over-stepped its jurisdictional contours under Article 227 of the Constitution in upsetting a finding on fact entered by the fact finding court.

6. The relevant provision, under which a landlord can seek decree for eviction of his tenant for his own occupation of the building, is Section 13(1)(g) of the Act. It reads thus:

“13. When Landlord may recover possession.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of Sections 15 and 15A, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied-

(g) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust.”

7. Sections 15 and 15A are not applicable in this case and hence we are not bothered about their implications. The grounds mentioned in clause (g) is couched in a language to provide emphasis to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord by using the words “reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord”. In fact both terms (reasonably and bona fide) are complimentary to each other in the context, for, any unreasonable requirement is not bona fide. Vice-versa can also be spelt that if the requirement has to be bona fide it must necessarily be reasonable also. But when the legislature employed the two terms together the message to be gathered is that the requirement must be really genuine from any reasonable standard. All the same, genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need.

8. When a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation there is no doubt he has to prove it. But there is n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 563

Important PointGrounds mentioned in clause (g) is couched in a language to provide emphasis to the genu­ineness of the requirement of the landlord; genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need.

Important Point
Grounds mentioned in clause (g) is couched in a language to provide emphasis to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord; genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need.