M. K. Salpekar vs Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(SC) 500

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., L.M. SHARMA, J.
Dr. M. K. Salpekar, Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1584-1585 of 1985, D/- 10-8-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. A. Bobde, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, MR.S. D. Mudaliar and Ms. Alanjit Chauhan, Advocates with him for Appellant; Mr. U. R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Advocate with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, A.K.Sanghi, ALAMJIT CHAUHAN, S.D.Mudaliar, U.R.Lalit, V.A.BOBDE

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Appeals have arisen out of two proceedings initiated by the owners of the disputed premises for the eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground that he has secured alternative accommodation and, therefore, does not reasonably need the house – Premises are parts of the same building situate in the city of Nagpur, and belong to a family of which the applicants, respondents before this Court, are members – Appellant-tenant, who is a renowned doctor of Nagpur, has been occupying the premises as tenant for the purposes of his clinic since – Admittedly he has built in Ramdaspeth, another part of the city, a large double storeyed house, and has let out portions thereof to the State Forest Department for running its office – On a partition amongst the members of the family of the owners of the Mahal Building the premises in possession of the appellant-tenant was allotted to the respondents in the two appeals, in parts and they started the present proceedings by two separate applications for permission to determine the tenancy of the appellant-tenant –Held, It is urged that the clause "and does not reasonably need the house" applies as a necessary condition to both categories of cases, that is, where the tenant secures alternative accommodation as also where he has left the area for a period of four months, and this the Courts below have failed to appreciate – Court do not agree – Punctuation comma in the sub-clause after "alternative accommodation" and before the rest of the sentence indicates that the last part of the sub-clause namely "and does not reasonably need the house" governs only the second part of the sub-clause – However, this controversy is academic in nature because when a Court is called upon to decide whether another building available to the tenant can be treated as alternative accommodation, it has to consider – Whether the other building is capable of reasonably meeting the requirements of the tenant on his vacating the disputed premises – Adjective "alternative" by itself imports this as a condition – And this aspect has been thoroughly gone into by the Courts below and necessary findings have been recorded against the appellant – Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

SHARMA, J. :- The main question in these cases is whether sub-clause (v) of Clause 13(3) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order), applied to all buildings whether residential or non-residential, or was confined only to residential houses.

2. The civil appeals have arisen out of two proceedings initiated by the owners of the disputed premises for the eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground that he has secured alternative accommodation and, therefore, does not reasonably need the house. The two premises are parts of the same building situate in Mahal Chowk in the city of Nagpur, and belong to a family of which the applicants, respondents before this Court, are members. The appellant-tenant Dr. M. K. Salpekar, who is a renowned doctor of Nagpur, has been occupying the premises as tenant for the purposes of his clinic since 1944. Admittedly he has built in Ramdaspeth, another part of the city, a large double storeyed house, and has let out portions thereof to the State Forest Department for running its office. On a partition amongst the members of the family of the owners of the Mahal Building the premises in possession of the appellant-tenant was allotted to the respondents in the two appeals, in parts and they started the present proceedings by two separate applications for permission to determine the tenancy of the appellant-tenant. The appellant defended the actions but the Rent Controller allowed the prayer of the respondents. The order was confirmed in appeal. The appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was heard by a learned single Judge and was dismissed by a reasoned judgment. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed in limine. The appellant then filed the present civil appeals by special leave.

3. The necessary findings on the various issues involving facts were recorded in favour of the respondents by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court and have been endorsed by the learned single Judge of the High Court.

4. Mr. Bobde appearing in support of the appeals has contended that the provisions of Clause 13(3)(v) quoted below, which are the basis for the impugned decision, do not apply to non-residential buildings :-

"13.(1) No landlord shall, except with the previous written permission of the Controller,-

(a) give notice to a tenant determining the lease or determining the lease if the lease is expressed to be determinable at his option; or

.....................................

(3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied

(i) ......................................

.......................................

(v) that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation, or has left the area for a continuous period of four months and does not reasonably need the house;

Explanation. - For the purpose of this item the tenant shall be deemed to have secured an alternative accommodation if he owns a residential house in the city or town concerned and if such house is constructed on a site lying vacant on 1st January, 1951 or on a site made vacant on or after that date by demolition of any structure standing on such site; or

(vi) ..................................... .........................

...............................................................

he shall grant the landlord permission to give notice to determine the lease as required by sub-clause (1)."

The Courts were, therefore, in grave error in directing eviction of the appellant from the premises let out to him not for the purpose of his residence but for running. a clinic. The argument is that the Explanation to the clause quoted above by referring to "a residential house in the city or town concerned" makes it abundantly clear that the clause cannot be applied to a non-residential house, for, a residential house cannot be considered as alternative accommodation to a non-residential building.

5. The original Control Order did

Click Here to Read the rest of this document