Back
1988 Supreme(Ori) 108
High Court Of Orissa
H. L. AGRAWAL, P. C. MISRA, G. B. PATTANAIK, D. P. MOHAPATRA, A. K. PADHI
RAGHABA CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
BIPIN BEHARI - Respondent
O. J. C. 1638 Of .
Decided On : 08/08/1988
G.RATH, M.Patra
A landlord can seek eviction under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967, to demolish a building and construct a new one for personal occupation, including remodeling or making suitable additions or alterations to the existing building. However, the landlord cannot seek eviction solely to demolish a dilapidated building without any necessity for personal occupation.
Headnote:
EVICTION - LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO DEMOLISH BUILDING - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7 (4) OF ORISSA HOUSE RENT CONTROL ACT, 1967 - REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD FOR PERSONAL OCCUPATION - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a dilapidated building to construct a new one for personal occupation and business purposes. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming the building was not in a dilapidated condition and the landlord's requirement was not genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a landlord can seek eviction under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967, to demolish a building and construct a new one for personal occupation, including remodeling or making suitable additions or alterations to the existing building. However, the landlord cannot seek eviction solely to demolish a dilapidated building without any necessity for personal occupation.
Issues: 1. Whether a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant to demolish a dilapidated building simply because it has become dangerous for occupation. 2. Whether a landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction to enable him to demolish a house and build altogether a new one according to his own needs for personal occupation. 3. Whether a landlord is entitled to demolish a house even though it may not be in a dilapidated condition when he needs the vacant land in appropriate cases for personal occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that a landlord has no right under Section 7 (4) of the Act to seek eviction of a tenant to enable him to demolish a dilapidated house simply because it has become dangerous for occupation, shorn of any necessity in any form. 2. The Court held that the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction to enable him to demolish a house and build altogether a new one according to his own needs for personal occupation. This right would also include the right of remodeling or making suitable additions or alterations to the existing building. 3. The Court held that a landlord is also entitled to demolish a house even though it may not be in a dilapidated condition his case being not covered under the answer to question No. 2 when he needs the vacant land in appropriate cases for personal occupation as already discussed in detail in the body of the judgment.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the tenant's writ petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the lower authorities.
AGARWAL, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS writ application arising out of an eviction proceeding has been referred to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the Full Bench decision of this Court in H. Mohammad Sikandar v. Badrunissa Bibi (1975) 41 Cut LT 460 and to reconcile the observations made in some decisions.
( 2 ) THE core question for consideration is, whether a landlord can secure eviction of his tenant from a building in order to demolish the same. It would be better to split up the question into the following three parts so that it may be answered in a comprehensive manner : - (1) when the building has become dilapidated and dangerous for occupation. (2) when the landlord desires to construct altogether a new building for personal occupation according to his own requirement, and (3) when he wants to demolish otherwise.
( 3 ) A proceeding for eviction of the present petitioner was initiated under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act') in the year 1976 before the House Rent Controller, Jaipur, from the premises bearing Municipal Holding No. 29 (A) in Ward No. III of the Jajpur Municipality on the following allegations : -" (1) The building is a very old building and is in a most dilapidated condition. At any time it may fall down and cause loss to human life. Its condition is so worse that any repair attended to would have a very short life and would incur heavy expenses. It will not be wise to invest any money for a prudent man. (2) That after reconstruction of the building the petitioners want to carry on business personally in the houses as they have no other building in the town. The Zamindary Abolition Act has taken away most of the properties. "
( 4 ) THE application was contested by the tenant on the ground that although the building was old, it was not in a dilapidated condition and the portion which was in his occupation was not likely to fall down. Proceeding further, the written statement contained the following statement : -"that the demised premises is a small part of a very big two-storied building. The front side of the ground floor has been let out to about a dozen persons for commercial purpose. The back side of the ground floor bearing 2 to 3 rooms and the whole of upstairs has been abandoned since over 20 years and therefore the up-stairs of the whole building without any repair or habitation got damaged. "the tenant also challenged the report of the Municipal Engineer regarding the condition of the building. He also denied the alleged necessity of the landlord for personal occupation.
( 5 ) THE House Rent Controller (opp. party No. 4) on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties recorded the following findings : -"i believe, the requirement of the petitioners is not a mala fide one, rather a bona fide one, and in good faith he requires to construct a new building along with other petitioners in place of old and dilapidated building in order to start a business. "he accordingly directed the tenant-petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the premises within two months from the date of his order dated 21-02-79 (Annexure-3 ).
( 6 ) THE appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner also proved abortive, where the following findings were recorded : -"under the circumstances, I am inclined to hold, in agreement with the learned controller that the disputed house is in a most dilapidated condition and needs dismantling to prevent loss of human life. 7. On question of bona fide requirement, it is seen that the petitioners originally belonged to Zamindar family and after abolition of the Zamindary system, they have become poorer like any other former Zaminders. This is also borne out from the fact that two of the petitioners have taken up Government service and one of them namely, the petitioner No. 1 is maintaining himself by cultivation. It is therefore quite likely that in order to properly maintain themselves the petitioners may be desirous of starting some busi
