JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:-This is a reference by the learned Single Judge (Srikrishna, J.) to resolve the conflict of opinion as to interpretation of section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act).

2. In (Gajanand v. Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh)1, Bom. C.R. 259 (R.A. Jahagirdar, J.) and in (Dattatraya Pandi Kharote v. Pandurang Maruti Jadhav)2, 1991 Bom. R.C. 60 (Ashok Agarwal, J.) have held that the provision applies only to the premises taken on lease for residental use. In (Madhukar Vishnu Sathe v. Vithoba Ramji Thorat)3, A.I.R. 1992 Bombay 272 (V.V. Kamt, J.) has taken a view that the provision would apply also to premises taken for commercial use.

3. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass and it is this : Lakshminarayan Deo Public Trust, Swaminaryan Mandir, Dhule (the landlord) had let out for commercial use the shop premises to deceased Bhavarlal Sukhlal Soni (tenant). The tenant secured another commercial premises in the town and on that basis a suit for recovery of possession of the premises under Clause 13(1)(1) was filed by the landlord. The trial Court dismissed the suit taking a view that section 13(1)(1) is not attracted in cases of tenancy for commercial puposes. The said order of dismissal was set aside in appeal on the basis of the case of Madhukar Vishnu Sathe (supra). Aggrieved thereby, this petition was filed by the legal heirs of the tenant. During the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge noticed the above conflict of opinions and hence referred the question to a larger Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to place the petition itself before us for final disposal.

4. We reproduce for ready reference the relevant portion of section 13(1)(I) :

"13. When landlord may recover possession:-

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

(a) to (k) ... ...

(I) that the tenant after coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence."

5. The task of interpretation of the above provision uninfluenced by any judgment appears to be easy on applying the plain language formula. It is apparent that the clause applies only to the premises let out for residence. The object being to make available to landlords all residential premises really not needed by the tenants due to building, acquiring or being allotted a "suitable residence". Though unhappily worded the above legislative intention is clearly discernible. It could not have been the legislative intention to evict the tenant of commercial premises because he secured other suitable residence. In a search of legislative intent, absurdities have always to be avoided.

6. Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is almost similar to section 13(1)(I) of the Act. In the case of (S. Kartar Singh v. Chaman Lal and others)4, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1288, section 14(1)(h) has been interpreted on the lines indicated above. In the said decision, following observations in the case of (Dr. Gopal Dass Varma v. Dr. S.K. Bhardwaj and another)5, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 337, have received approval (page 340) :

"If the premises from which ejectment is sought are used not only for residence but also for profession how could section 13(1)(h) come into operation? One of the purposes for which the tenancy is acquired is professional use, and that cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of premises which are suitable for residence alone, and it is the suitability for residence alone which is postulated by section 13(1)(h). Therefore, in our opinion, it would be unreasonable to hold that tenancy which has been created or used both for residence and profession can be successfully terminated by merely showing that the tenant has acquired a suitable residence".

7. It is true that the above interpretation leaves the commercial lease

Click Here to Read the rest of this document