2008 Supreme(SC) 1518

2008(8) Supreme 279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha — Appellant
versus
Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6125 of 2008
[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.4764 of 2006]
Decided on : 16-10-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of the business.

Headnote:Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Clause 13(3) (iv) and (vi) – Application by appellant landlord seeking permission to terminate tenancy of respondent-tenant under Clause 13 (3) (iv) and (vi) of “Rent Control Order – After considering evidence, Rent Controller granted permission to the appellant-landlord to determine tenancy – Appeal – Allowed by Appellate authority – Writ Petition – Partly allowed by Single Judge, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority to the extent it quashed the order of Rent Controller granting relief to appellant-landlord under Clause 13(3)(iv) of the Rent Control Order – However, order of Rent Controller granting permission to appellant-landlord to terminate tenancy of respondent-tenant under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of Rent Control Order was restored and to that extent order of Appellate Authority was set aside – Writ appeal – Allowed by High Court-Appeal – The eviction of the respondent-tenant recorded by Rent Controller had been confirmed by Single Judge on ground of bona fide requirement of appellant-landlord in terms of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order – On plain reading of language of Clause 13(1)(a) of the Rent Control Order, it is clear that the question of determination of tenancy would arise only after permission to serve such notice is granted by the Rent Controller – Thus, the notice issued by Advocate on behalf of appellant-landlord prior to filing of application for eviction of respondent-tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) was not a mandatory requirement postulated under the provisions of Rent Control Order – As there was no statutory requirement that landlord should issue a notice of eviction to tenant before initiating proceedings under clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order, Division Bench of High Court was not right in drawing an inference against appellant-landlord for not stating ground of bona fide requirement of the premises in notice issued to the respondent-tenant before institution of eviction proceedings – Appeal allowed. (Para 14)

        Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Clause 13(3) (iv) and (vi) – Application by appellant landlord seeking permission to terminate tenancy of respondent-tenant under Clause 13(3)(iv) and (vi) of “Rent Control Order – Held appellant-landlord applied to Rent Controller for determination of tenancy of the respondent-tenant on ground, that his son, at time of application, was a student of M. Tech. at Nagpur and after completing his examination in Chemical Engineering, he wanted to start his business of manufacturing oxalic acid in the factory to be set up in the demised premises – Landlord stated that he also wanted to shift his business and residence from Gondia to Nagpur, therefore, he was in need of the premises for himself and for the bona fide occupation of his son – During the pendency of eviction proceedings, Rent Controller allowed the application of the appellant-landlord for amendment of pleadings – In para 5 (a) of the amended application, appellant-landlord stated that his son had since qualified M. Tech. examination in Chemical Engineering and applicant had also applied for licence to manufacture Oxalic acid in Bhandara District – Plea of appellant-landlord, that his son would reside at Nagpur in the demised premises and would look after sales of Oxalic acid – Alternatively, it was claimed by appellant-landlord that if the licence for manufacturing Oxalic acid was not granted by the competent authority, his son would shift to Nagpur and start an industry for manufacturing chemical products – In the light of the evidence on record, held that order of High Court could not be sustained – The entire approach of High Court in setting aside the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Single Judge was erroneous and Division Bench mis-directed itself while considering the question of bona fide requirement in terms of Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order, which postulates that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish of the landlord – Appeal allowed. (Para 15 to 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Application was filed by appellant landlord herein in the instant case seeking permission to terminate tenancy of respondent-tenant under Clause 13 (3) (iv) and (vi) of “Rent Control Order. After considering evidence, Rent Controller granted permission to the appellant-landlord to determine tenancy. Appeal thereagainst was allowed by Appellate authority. Writ Petition thereagainst was partly allowed by Single Judge, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority to the extent it quashed the order of Rent Controller granting relief to appellant-landlord under Clause 13 (3) (iv) of the Rent Control Order.However, order of Rent Controller granting permission to appellant-landlord to terminate tenancy of respondent-tenant under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of Rent Control Order was restored and to that extent order of Appellate Authority was set aside. Writ appeal thereagainst was allowed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held appellant-landlord applied to Rent Controller for determination of tenancy of the respondent-tenant on ground, that his son, at time of application, was a student of M. Tech. at Nagpur and after completing his examination in Chemical Engineering, he wanted to start his business of manufacturing oxalic acid in the factory to be set up in the demised premises. Landlord stated that he also wanted to shift his business and residence from Gondia to Nagpur, therefore, he was in need of the premises for himself and for the bona fide occupation of his son. During the pendency of eviction proceedings, Rent Controller allowed the application of the appellant-landlord for amendment of pleadings.In para 5 (a) of the amended application, appellant-landlord stated that his son had since qualified M. Tech. examination in Chemical Engineering and applicant had also applied for licence to manufacture Oxalic acid in Bhandara District. Plea of appellant-landlord, that his son would reside at Nagpur in the demised premises and would look after sales of Oxalic acid. Alternatively, it was claimed by appellant-landlord that if the licence for manufacturing Oxalic acid was not granted by the competent authority, his son would shift to Nagpur and start an industry for manufacturing chemical products. In the light of the evidence on record, held that order of High Court could not be sustained. The entire approach of High Court in setting aside the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Single Judge was erroneous and Division Bench mis-directed itself while considering the question of bona fide requirement in terms of Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order, which postulates that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish of the landlord.

       Result : Appeal allowed.