http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

DR. M. K. SALPEKAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SUNIL KUMAR SHAMSUNDER CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1988

BENCH:

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

BENCH:

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 1841 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 339

1988 SCC (4) 21 JT 1988 (3) 356

1988 SCALE (2)666

ACT:

C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,

1949:Clause 13 (3) (v)-Whether confined to only residential

houses.

HEADNOTE:

The respondent-landlords submitted two separate

applications before the Rent Controller for permission to

determine the tenancy of the appellant-tenant from their

portions of the premises on the ground that the tenant had

built a large house in the city and had thus secured

alternative accommodation. The Rent Controller allowed the

prayer. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the

appellant’s writ petition and his Letters Patent Appeal was

also dismissed.

Before this Court the appellant’s main contention was

that the provisions of clause l3 (3)(v) of the C.P. & Berar

Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 did not apply

to non-residential buildings. The argument was that by the

addition of the Explanation to clause l3(3)(v), non-

residential buildings have been excluded from the purview of

the sub-clause.

Dismissing the appeals it was,

HELD: (1) It cannot be reasonably suggested that by the

addition of the Explanation, which is confined to cases

dealing with residential buildings, a non-residential

building is excluded even where the tenant leaves the area

for a period of four months and does not need the house.

[342G-H]

If the position in regard to the second category of

cases remained unaffected, the Explanation cannot be

construed to narrow down the scope of the first category of

cases where the tenant secures alternative

accommodation.[342H; 343A]

(2) It is not possible to split the main sub-clause so

as to apply it to non-residential buildings where the tenant

leaves the area for four months and at the same time exclude

it where he secures alternative accommodation as the sub-

clause deals with the two situations in the same language

without making any distinction. [343A-B]

PG NO 339

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

PG NO 340

(3) The Explanation operates within a very narrow area

and does not cover the entire field governed by the main

sub-clause. By the use of the expression "shall be deemed" a

legal fiction has been employed for the purpose of including

a particular situation within the sweep of the sub-clause.

l343D]

(4) It cannot be legitimately suggested that since in

the majority of other States, similar provisions in the

statutes on rent law are limited in operation to residential

buildings, the same must be presumed to be the intention of

the author of the Control Order. It is a question of policy

to be adopted by the different legislatures. [343G-H]

Mansaram v. S. P. Pathak, [l984] 1 SCC 125 referred to.

JUDGMENT:

ClVlL’ APPELLATE JURISDICTlON: Civil Appeal Nos.1584-

1585 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.1984 of the

Bombay High Court in L. P. A. Nos. 76 and 77 of 1984.

V.A. Bobde, A.G. Ratanapakrkhi, S.D. Mudaliar and Ms.

Alanjit Chauhan for the Appellant.

U. R. Lalit and A. K. Sanghi for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHARMA, J. The main question in these cases is whether

sub-clause (v) of Clause l3(3) of the C.P. & 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