Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- The appellants in these two appeals are monthly tenants of the respondent the Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir. The respondent filed suits against the appellants for possession of the premises let out to them, on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the respondent for its own purposes. On both counts the trial Court held against the respondent and dismissed the suits. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the learned Assistant Judge. Surat but the High Court of Gujarat allowed the respondent s revision application and decreed the suits. On March 11, 1974 the High Court granted to the appellants a certificate to appeal to this Court under the amended Article.133(1) of the Constitution.

2. The Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947 is in force in Gujarat with certain modifications. Section 12 (1) of the Act provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 13 of the Act sets out the various grounds on which a landlord may recover possession of the premises let out to the tenant. Sub-section ( 1 ), clause (g) of that section provides :

"13 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of Section 15, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is, satisfied -

xx xx xx xx xx xx .xx

(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 a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purpose of the trust."

Section 15(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law but subject to any contract to the contrary it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of the Act for any tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein Section 15(2) legalises sub-leases, assignments and transfers effected in favour of persons as have entered into possession and have continued in possession on the date of the commencement of the Ordinance of 1959.

3. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the respondent required the premises for the purpose of its business but they dismissed the suits on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the requirement could not be said to be reasonable and bona fide. The High Court accepted the finding of the Courts below that the premises were required by the respondent for the purpose of its business but it differed from them on the question of the applicability of Section 25. The High Court has taken the view that Section 13 (1) (g) is not subject to Section 25 and therefore the question whether the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide has to be decided apart from the provisions of Section 25. The correctness of this view is challenged by the tenants in these appeals.

4. The scheme of the Act is that ordinarily the landlord shall not be entitled to evict a tenant so long as the latter pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and so long as he observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. This rule is enunciated in Section 12 (1). Section 13 of the Act is in the nature of an exception to Section 12. It enumerates the grounds on which, notwithstanding the injunction contained in Section 12, a landlord may obtain possession of the premises let out to the tenant. Under Sect