1. Landlord seeks eviction of tenant from non-residential premises for own business use under Section 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
M. Padmananbha Setty, Appellant
Versus
K. P. Papiah Setty, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 756 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Venkatarangaiengar and G. L. Sanghi, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellant; Mr. Mirle N. Lakshminarayanappa, Senior Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Malhotra, Advocate and M/s. S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, Advocate of M/s. Ganpat Rai and Co., with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
G.L.SANGHI, GANPAT RAI, J.B.DADACHAN, Mirle N.Lakshminaranappa, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.MALHOTRA, Ravindra Narayan, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR, S.S.Khanduja
G.L.SANGHI, GANPAT RAI, J.B.DADACHAN, Mirle N.Lakshminaranappa, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.MALHOTRA, Ravindra Narayan, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR, S.S.Khanduja
A tenant's right to occupy premises until evicted is a statutory immunity from eviction, not an "entitlement to possession." Thus, a landlord who is a tenant in another non-residential building can still seek eviction of their own tenant for bona fide business use.
Headnote:(A) Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 - Section 8(3)(a)(ii) - Non-residential building - Eviction for own use - Interpretation of "entitled to possession" - A tenant's right to remain in possession until evicted under the provisions of the Act is a statutory immunity from eviction and not a positive right to possession - The words "entitled to possession" are akin to the right of possession an owner has in respect of a building owned and occupied by him (Para 8).
(B) Revision - Section 17 - Scope of jurisdiction - High Court is justified in setting aside an order of a lower court if the lower court acted with material irregularity by failing to follow a binding decision of the High Court (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from non-residential premises on the ground that the premises were required for the landlord's own business use. The landlord was currently conducting business from rented premises. The lower court held that the landlord was not entitled to possession of the premises in dispute unless he was prepared to vacate the rented shops. The High Court set aside this order.
Findings of Court:
The court held that a tenant who can be evicted under the conditions prescribed in the Act cannot be said to be entitled to the possession of the premises. The landlord's occupation of rented premises does not disqualify him from seeking eviction of his own tenant for bona fide business use.
Issues: Whether the phrase "entitled to possession" in Section 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Act includes a landlord who is in occupation of another non-residential building as a tenant, and whether the High Court was correct in its revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that "entitled to possession" has a positive content and refers to a right similar to ownership. A tenant's right to stay until evicted is a statutory immunity, which is a negative element restricting the landlord's right, rather than a positive entitlement to possession. Therefore, a landlord occupying rented premises is not "entitled to possession" of those premises within the meaning of the section.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a landlord occupying rented premises is entitled to possession of those premises, thereby barring eviction of their own tenant under Section 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 )
3. Statutory immunity from eviction does not equate to a positive right to possession; a landlord occupying rented premises is not entitled to possession in the sense intended. (Para 8 )
4. The phrase entitled to possession in Section 8(3)(a)(ii) refers to a positive right of possession, such as ownership, rather than a tenant's statutory immunity from eviction. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; tenant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the premises to the landlord within two months. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Does a tenant's statutory immunity from eviction constitute an entitlement to possession under rent control legislation?
No. The court held that the right to remain in possession until evicted under statutory conditions is a negative immunity and does not equate to a positive entitlement to possession, which is more akin to the right of an owner. (Para 8 )
7. Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant for business use if the landlord currently operates from rented premises?
Yes. Since a landlord in rented premises is not entitled to possession of those premises in the positive sense, they are not barred from seeking eviction of their own tenant to shift their business to their own property. (Para 8 )
8. Is a High Court justified in setting aside a lower court's order in revision if the lower court failed to follow a binding High Court precedent?
Yes. Failing to follow a decision of the High Court, especially one arising from an earlier order of the same judge, constitutes a material irregularity justifying the setting aside of the order in revision. (Para 10 )
Judgement
SIKRI, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in Civil Revision Petition No. 1044 of 1962, filed under S. 17 of the MYSORE HOUSE RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT , 1951 (Mysore Act XXX of 1951) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - whereby the High Court set aside the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The III Additional Judge had set aside the order of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, who had directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute.
2. The appellant before us, Padmanabha Setty, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, was the tenant of a non-residential premises No. 281, Old Tharagupet, Bangalore City. The tenant had installed some machinery in the premises. The respondent, K. P. Papiah Setty, is the landlord. He had purchased the premises for his own use and occupation, namely, for the purpose of shifting his business which he was carrying on in a rented building to the premises in dispute. The landlord filed an application under S. 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. It is not necessary to give the other allegations made in the application as both the First Munsiff, Bangalore, and the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore, have found that the landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation, namely, for shifting his business from the rented premises to the premises in dispute. The III Additional District Judge, however, held that under Section 8 (3) (a) (ii) the landlord was not entitled to possession of the premises in dispute unless and until he was prepared to vacate the shops in which he was trading at the time. This finding of the learned Additional Judge was contrary to the decision of the Mysore High Court in S. G. Narayanappa and Bros. v. A. N. Narasimhiah , 1962-40 Mys LJ 760. The landlord then filed a revision petition under S. 17 of the Act, and the High Court, following the decision in 1962-40 Mys LJ 760, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge. The tenant having obtained special leave, the matter is now before us.
3. Two points are raised before us: (1) that the construction put upon Section 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act by the Mysore High Court is erroneous and the construction put upon a similar provision by the Madras High Court in Thanappa Chetty v. Govindaswami Naicker , AIR 1952 Mad 553, is correct; and (2) that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge in a reversion under S. 17 of the Act.
4. The Act was passed to regulate the letting of residential and non-residential houses and to control the rents of such houses and to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Mysore. The word "tenant" is defined as follows in sub-s. (9) of S. 2 of the Act:
" tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a house and includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the house as a member of the tenant s family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a house by its tenant or a person to whom the collection or rents or fees in a public market, cartstand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a local authority."
There is no doubt that the definition of the word "tenant" is wider than the ordinary meaning of the word and includes a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour. Section 4 deals with the determination of fair rent and S. 5 with lawful increase of or addition to or reduction in fair rent. Section 6 prohibits the landlord from claiming or receiving anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent. Sec
