A landlord can recover possession of premises under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, if he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for occupation by himself, even if he intends to make alterations to the premises before occupying them.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. - This appeal by special leave, is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court and raises the question of the true construction of sub-cls. (g) and (hh) of sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), hereinafter called the Act.

2. The facts leading to the appeal, in short, are that the appellant is a tenant of the ground-floor of a house owned by the respondent. The respondent sued for the ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he required the entire house including the portion occupied by appellant, for his residential purpose. He further stated in the plaint :

"The whole suit bungalow is very old-built about 75 years ago and at present its different parts are likely to give way and collapse. Before sometime, a little portion of an upper balcony had collapsed. In the circumstances, on finding it unsafe to stay in it without making additions, alterations and necessary changes. I, the plaintiff, am obliged to wait till I get possession of the whole bungalow.

I, the plaintiff, have got the upper portion of the said suit bungalow vacated at present and only after the whole bungalow got overhauled as stated in para above. I, the plaintiff can utilize it for my personal use."

3. The appellant contested the suit on various grounds including the ones that the respondent did not reasonably and bona fide require the premises for his occupation and that he did not reasonably and bona fide require the premises for his occupation and that he did not reasonably and bona fide require the premises for carrying out repairs.

4. The trial Court found that the respondent bona fide the premises for his occupation. It repelled the contention of the appellant that the provisions of S. 13(1) (g) would not be applicable when the landlord did not wish to occupy the premises as such but intended to occupy it after carrying out major repairs, and decreed the respondent s suit for ejectment.

5. The defendant went up in appeal. It was dismissed. The appellate Court agreed with the views of the trial Court. The defendant then presented a revision petition to the High Court. It was rejected. It is against this order that he has filed this appeal.

6. A preliminary objection has been taken that the revision to the High Court was incompetent as no question of jurisdiction was involved. For the appellant it is urged that on the facts found, the trial Court assumed jurisdiction which it did not have and that therefore the revision was competent. We uphold the preliminary objection and hold that the revision was incompetent.

7. The question raises was whether a decree in ejectment should be passed on the ground of personal requirements under S. 13(1) (g) of the Act where it was proved that the landlord wanted to pull down the premises and build another and then occupy it. It was said that in such a case he had to proceed under cl. (hh) of S. 13 (1). It is clear that the question so raised is one of interpretation of these two clauses. Section 28 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Court specified in it, to try a suit or proceeding between a landlord and tenant relating to possession of the premises. That section expressly provides that no other Court, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2) which do not apply to this case, has jurisdiction to entertain such suits. It is clear from this section that the trial Court had full jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment. That being so, it had jurisdiction to interpret whether cl. (g) of S. 13(1) would apply to the present case. The appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The High Court could not, therefore, interfere in revision with the decision of the appellate Court, even if it had gone wrong, on facts or law, in the exercise of it jurisdiction. It follows that the revision application had to be dismissed by the High Court and that this appeal too must fail.

8. Since the merits of the case have been