1. Landlord recovered possession of premises via decree under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents Act but failed to occupy the premises within one month. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Krishanlal Ishwarlal Desai, Appellant
Versus
Bai Vijkor and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 804 of 1962, dated 18-1-1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellant, Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.T.DESAI
I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.T.DESAI
Important Points
Under Section 17(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, a landlord recovering possession under Section 13(1)(g) must occupy the premises within one month; failure to do so entitles the original tenant to seek restoration of possession.
Subject
Property Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT: S.13(1), S.17(1)
Headnote
(A) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sections 13(1)(g), 13(1)(i) and 17(1) - Recovery of possession by landlord for bona fide requirement - Obligation to occupy premises within one month - Construction of Section 17(1) - Where a decree for eviction is passed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for occupation by the landlord, the requirement to occupy the premises within one month from the date of recovering possession is mandatory - The period of one month applies equally to cases of occupation under clause (g) as it does to the commencement of erection of a building under clause (i) of Section 13(1). (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 17(2) - Penalty for contravention - The provision of penalty for failure to occupy or commence erection without reasonable excuse within one month reinforces that the one-month limitation applies to both categories of decrees. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A landlord obtained a decree for possession of two-thirds of an open plot of land on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for his own occupation. Possession was delivered in execution proceedings. However, the landlord did not occupy the premises until several months after recovering possession. The original tenants applied for restoration of possession on the ground that the landlord failed to occupy the premises within the statutory period of one month.
Findings of Court:
The landlord failed to occupy the premises within the period prescribed by Section 17(1).
Issues: Whether the stipulation requiring the landlord to occupy the premises within one month from the date of recovering possession under Section 17(1) applies to decrees passed under Section 13(1)(g).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a fair and reasonable construction of Section 17(1) indicates that the one-month period applies to both occupation and the erection of a new building. The legislative intent to protect tenants is evident from the overall scheme of the section, including the limitation period for tenants to apply and the penalties prescribed under Section 17(2) for failure to occupy or commence work within one month. The construction of the clause according to the rules of ordinary grammar also supports this conclusion.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 17(2) - Penalty for contravention - The provision of penalty for failure to occupy or commence erection without reasonable excuse within one month reinforces that the one-month limitation applies to both categories of decrees. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A landlord obtained a decree for possession of two-thirds of an open plot of land on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for his own occupation. Possession was delivered in execution proceedings. However, the landlord did not occupy the premises until several months after recovering possession. The original tenants applied for restoration of possession on the ground that the landlord failed to occupy the premises within the statutory period of one month.
Findings of Court:
The landlord failed to occupy the premises within the period prescribed by Section 17(1).
Issues: Whether the stipulation requiring the landlord to occupy the premises within one month from the date of recovering possession under Section 17(1) applies to decrees passed under Section 13(1)(g).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a fair and reasonable construction of Section 17(1) indicates that the one-month period applies to both occupation and the erection of a new building. The legislative intent to protect tenants is evident from the overall scheme of the section, including the limitation period for tenants to apply and the penalties prescribed under Section 17(2) for failure to occupy or commence work within one month. The construction of the clause according to the rules of ordinary grammar also supports this conclusion.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the one-month limitation for occupation under Section 17(1) applies to decrees passed under Section 13(1)(g) or if occupation within reasonable time suffices. (Para 6 )
3. The statutory scheme and grammar of Section 17(1), coupled with penalties in Section 17(2), indicate the one-month limit applies to both occupation and erection. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
4. The one-month period for occupying premises under Section 17(1) applies equally to decrees passed under Section 13(1)(g) as it does to Section 13(1)(i). (Para 7 , 8 , 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed; respondents entitled to an order for possession of the premises. (Para 11 )
6. Does the one-month limitation for occupation under Section 17(1) of the Bombay Rents Act apply to decrees passed under Section 13(1)(g)?
Yes. The court held that the one-month period applies to both the occupation of premises under Section 13(1)(g) and the commencement of erection under Section 13(1)(i). (Para 7 , 8 )
7. How does the court distinguish between possession and occupation under Section 17(1)?
Possession refers to the delivery of the premises via execution of a decree, whereas occupation requires an overt act in accordance with the case proved at trial. (Para 6 )
8. Does Section 17(2) support the interpretation of the one-month limitation period for occupation?
Yes. Section 17(2) prescribes penalties for landlords who fail to occupy or commence erection without reasonable excuse within one month, confirming the timeline applies to both categories. (Para 11 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADEKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the construction of S. 17 of the BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (No. 57 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). The said question arises in this way. The appellant Krishanlal Ishwarlal Desai is the landlord who owns an open plot of land named Hathi Khada in Kalasawadi town in the district of Surat. The said plot measures 32,406 sq. ft. This plot was in the possession of the respondents Bai Vijkor and others as tenants. In 1951, the appellant sued the respondents in ejectment. He claimed that under Section 13 (1) (g) and (i) of the Act he was entitled to recover possession of the premises consisting of the open plot in question. This claim was resisted by the respondents. The trial Court held that the appellant had not established his case under S. 13 (1) (i) but had proved his claim under S. 13 (1) (g). Having recorded this finding, the trial Court proceeded to examine the extent of the requirement proved by the appellant. Section 13 (1) (g) provides inter alia, that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself. Section 13 (1) (i) provides that the landlord would be similarly entitled to recover possession if the premises being land, they are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the erection of a new building. The trial Court found that the requirement of the appellant would be adequately met if he is given a decree for the possession of 2/3rds of the plot in suit. Accordingly, a decree was passed in his favour to that extent on March 16, 1955.
2. This decree was challenged both by the appellant and the respondents by cross-appeals in the District Court. The District Court held that the view taken by the trial Court was substantially right and there was no reason to interfere with the decree passed by it. In the result, both the appeals were dismissed on April 28, 1956.
3. The appellant then filed an execution application and obtained possession of 2/3rds of the premises in question on June 29, 1957. It appears that at the trial, the appellant s case was that he wanted the said premises for the purpose of his timber business. Eventually, however, the appellant occupied the said premises on October 24, 1957 not for carrying on his timber business but for storing or stocking, materials of sanitary works and building contracts which business he had started in partnership on that day. The appellant had constructed a shed for the watchmen to look after the articles which were stored on the open plot.
4. On July 29, 1958 the respondents applied under S. 17 (1) of the Act to the trial Court to obtain possession of the said premises on the ground that the appellant had failed to occupy the said premises within a period of one month from the date when he recovered possession as required by S. 17 (1). The trial Court held that the respondents had failed to make out a case under S. 17 (1) and so, their application was dismissed.
5. The respondents then preferred a revisional application in the District Court. This revisional application was treated as an appeal because the order passed by the trial Court was appealable. The District Court held that the appellant had failed to occupy the premises within the period prescribed by S. 17 (1) and so, the respondents were entitled to an order against the appellant for the possession of the said premises. This order was challenged by the appellant by preferring a revisional application before the High Court of Gujarat. The revisional application was, however, summarily dismissed. It is this revisional decision of the High Court of Gujarat that has given rise to the present appeal, and the only question which is raised for our decision is about the construction of S. 17 (1) o
