Holding

Section 13(1)(c) covers both residential and non‑residential premises and applies where the tenant has used the premises to commit an offence, taking advantage of the tenancy; thus eviction is justified.

Summary

The landlord sought eviction of a shop tenant under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, alleging that the tenant had been convicted of using the premises for illegal purposes. The tenant, who ran a sweet‑meats and farsan shop, had three convictions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated food. The Bombay High Court ordered eviction, and the tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the statutory provision applied only to residential premises and that the phrase “convicted of using the premises” should be limited to offences directly involving the tenant’s use of the premises. The Supreme Court held that Section 13(1)(c) applies to both residential and non‑residential premises and that the clause requires the tenant to have taken advantage of the tenancy to commit the offence, not merely any conviction occurring on the premises. Applying this test, the Court found the tenant had deliberately used the shop to sell adulterated food and therefore justified eviction. The petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act applies to non‑residential premises.
Whether the expression “convicted of using the premises” requires that the offence involve the tenant’s use of the premises.
Whether the tenant’s convictions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act justify eviction under the statute.

Legislation cited

Bombay Municipal Corporation Acts. 394, s. 394-A
Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 13(1)(c)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

Subjects

evictionrent controlnon‑residential premisesSection 13(1)(c)convictionfood adulterationlandlord‑tenantBombay Rent Actuse of premiseslegal interpretation

Judgment

ANIRUDHA RAMAKRISHNA KARLEKAR
A v.
SMT. JANKIBAI R. BEDEKAR

JANUARY 29, 1991

B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J];)

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging HDuse Rates Control Act;
1947-Section 13( J)(c)-Eviction-Whether covers non-residential
premises.

Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Att,
c 1947-Section 13(l)(c)-"Convicted of using the ptemises"-Cons-
.
truction of-Legislative intention-Repeated user of the premises for
sale of adulterated food and convicted twice-Convlctit:Jn whether
justified.
-
D Respondent-Landlac!J . ~tar1ed an evldlon pro~eeding under T
Section 13(l)(c) of the Bombay Rent Ac:t qainst the petitioner-tenant,
running a shop, selling sweet-iheats and farsen on the tenanted p~
mises, as he was convicted twice under the Pre~tiOn Of Food Adul-
teration Act.

~ Accepting claim of the land-lady the High Court ordered eviction.
,>-.
Tenant contending that ''con'ricted of using the premises" in Sft.
tion 13(l)(c) be lim1ted to offences involving the user Of the premises
that the provision does not cover non-residential premises, meet the
Special Leave Petition •.
...
Dismissing the petition, this Court,

HELD: 1. Section 13(l)(c) covers both remdential as well as non-
residential premises. If clause (c) is not applicable to business premises,
there is no other similar provision in the Bombay Rent Act relating to
the business premises. The consequence would be that the tenant in
G business premises could use the premises for committing any offence or
he could commit nuisance and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbour-
ing occupiers and yet claim that he is not liable to be evicted on that
grounds. Whereas, the tenant of residential premises would not be able
to commit such offence without the penalty of eviction. Such an
inter·"',..-~tation would render the Section vulnerable to attack under
H
Article l4 of the Constitution. [lSSD-G]

152
A.R. KARLEKAR v. SMT. J.R. BEDEKAR [SHETTY, J.] 153

2. The expression "convicted of using the premises" cannot be
A
given too liberal construction so as to cover every case of conviction of
the tenant. [156B]

3. Section 13( 1)(c) was not intended to be a moral code of conduct
for the tenant. For each and every offence committed at the premises,
the tenant cannot be exposed to the risk-of eviction. The crime may be B
forced upon the tenant at the premises by third parties. There may be
casual or incidental crimes. There may be technical offences connected
with the trade or licence to trade. There may be crimes where use of the
premises has nothing to do except being the scene of the offence. All
such cases cannot satisfy the requirements of Section 13(1)(c). [157A-Bl

-
·~·

4. The tenant must take advantage of his tenancy of the premises C
and of the opportunity they afford for permitting the crime. Only such
crimes could fall within the scope~ Section 13(1)(c). There need not be
continuous for repeated user of the premises for committing such
crimes. [157B-C]

[In the instant case, the tenant used the premises for carrying out illegal
sale of adulterated food along with his usual business in sweet meats and
farsen. He used the premises deliberately and taken advantage of his
tenancy for committing the offences in the course of his trade. He can be
evicted under Section 13(1)(c).] [f57C-D]

S. Schneiders and Sons Ltd. v. Abrahams, (19251 1 KB 301-
followed.

- 'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
No. 12541of1990.
F
~ From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.1990 of the Bombay
[ High Court in W.P. No. 2677 and 4128of1983.
~
U.R. Lalit, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the
Petitioner.
G
M.C. Bhandare, V.N. Ganpule, Satish K. Agnihotri and Mrs.
Suman B. Rastogi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAGANNATIJA SHETTY, J. The shop premises belonging H

-
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1991] I S.C.R.

to the respondent-landlady was taken on rent by the petitioner for
A business purposes. The premises are within the scope of the Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('The
Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioner has been carrying on business in
sweet-meats and farsen. The landlady brought action to recover pos-
session of the premises under Section 13(1)(c) on the ground that the·
B tenant has been convicted of using the premises. It is not in dispute that
the tenan·t was convicted on three occasions, first in 1968 for selling
adulterated Desi-butter and second, in 1972 for selling sugar-garland~
coloured with mentanil yellow a coaltar dye which is a prohibited
colouring agent. In the second judgment of conviction, it has been
stated .that the tenant had admitted two previous convictions and in
c one of the cases he was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1,000. All the convictions and sentences were under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The Bombay High Court has accepted the claim of the landlady
--
and ordered eviction under Section 13( 1)( c).
D
The tenant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Bombay
High Court. Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent A-ct reads:

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

(c) that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant
has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoylfnce
to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, or has been
convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to
-
be used for immoral or illegal purposes; or that the tenant
has ill respect of the premises been convicted of an offence
of contravention of any pl]>vision of clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of section 394 or of Section 394-A of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act."
G Underlining is ours

Section 13(1)(c) inter alia, provides that the landlord shall be entitled
to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the 'r-
tenant or any person residing with the 'tenant has been guilty of
conduct or has been convicted of using the preinises or allowing the
H premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes etc.
A.R. KARLEKAR v. SMT. J.R. BEDEKAR [SHETTY, .L] 155

Counsel for the tenant submits that the expression "convicted of
using the premises" must be limited to offences whiCh involve the user A
. of the premises and user of the premises must by itself be an offence
under law. By way of illustration, reference was made to the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the Bombay Prevention of Gambl-
ing Act, 1887 whereunder the use of the premises for illegal purposes
has been defined as an offence and punishable. It is only such convic- B
tion, counsel contends that it would expose the tenant to the risk of
ejectment under Section 13(1)(c). It is also argued that Section
13( 1)( c) does not cover non-residential premises and it covers only the
residential premises.

We will consider the second question first. The contention is
based on the term used in clause (c), namely "that the tenant or any c
person residing with the tenant has been ... " and it is said that the
expression "residing with the tenant" indicates that clause (c) is ap-
plicable only to residential premises. The essence of the submission is
that business premises are not used for residence. A Division Bench of
the Bompay High Court in a separate judgment connected with this D
case has not accepted that interpretation. It has expressed the view
that clause (c) covers equally residential and non-residential premises
and the expre-ssion "residing with the tenant" used in clause (c) only
indicates that the offence contemplated in clause (c) could be commit-
ted by the tenant or any person residing with tenant. We concur with
....... this view. Section 13(1)(c) applies to any premises. Section 5(8)
defines 'premises' to mean amongst others, any building or part of a
building let or given on licence separately other than a farm buiiding.

- If clause (c) is not applicable to business premises, there is no other
similar provision in the Bombay Rent Act relating to the business
premises. The consequence would be that the tenant in business pre-
mises could use the premises for committing any offence or he could F
commit nuisance and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring
occupiers and yet claim that he is not liable to be evicted on that
grounds. Whereas, the tenant of residential premises would not be
able to commit such offence without the penalty of eviction. Such an
interpretation would render the Section vulnerable to attack under
Article 14 of the Constitution. We must avoid such construction. · G
Section 13(1)(c), in our opinion, covers both residential as well as
non-residential premises.

This takes us to the more difficult question, whether the offence
leading to conviction which exposes the tenant to the risk of ejectment
should involve the user of premises, or is to enough if the tenant was H
156 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

convicted for an offence committed in the premises although the con-
A
viction is not of using the premises. Counsel for the tenant contends
that the Section 13( 1)(c) means the former. But the acceptance of such
construction would unreasonably narrow down the Section defeating
"the very object of the provision, since there are very few crimes that
cap properly be so described and brought within its operation. We
B therefore, reject the contention. But at the same time the expression
"convicted of using the premises" cannot be given too liberal construc-
tion so as· to cover every case of conviction of the tenant: In this
regard, we ·have a useful guidance from the decision in S. Schneiders
and Sons Ltd. v. Abrahams, [1925] 1 KB 30i, where a similar question
arose for consideration. There the tenant was convicted of an offence
C under Section 33 of the Larceny Act, 1916 of receiving at the demised
premises the property of the landlord well knowing the same to have
been stolen. The landlord brought an action to recover possession of ·
the premises under Section 4 of the Rent & Mortgage Interest Restric-
', tions Act", 1923. Section 4 provided that no judgment for the recovery
of possession of any house to which the Act applies shall· be given
D "unless the tenant .... has been convicted of using the premises or
allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose
....... " Bankes L.J. explaining the scope of the expression "con-
victed of using the premises" inter alia, observed that the said expres-
sion cannot be given a strictly technical construction and that would
exclude so many offences which would seem naturally to fall within the
E purview of the Section .. He however, emphasised that it is necessary to
show that the tenant has taken advantage of his tenancy of the pre-
mises and of the opportunity they afford for committing the offence.
He also dealt with the scope of the expression "using the premises",
whether it requires something more than a single act of user or a
continuous, frequent or repeated use. On this aspect, he said that "it
F may be that the mere fact of a crime being committed on the premises
would not constitute a user of the premises by the tenant for an illegal
purpose; for example, if the tenant was convicted of an assault upon
some one who happened to be on the premises in the occupation of the
tenant, and if that were the only evidence, I doubt whether the tenant
could be said to have been convicted of "using the premises for an
G ..... illegal purpose within the meaning of Section 4." But if the
tenant used the premises as coiner's den or as a deposit for stolen
goods, a single instance of such user seems to me quite enough to
satisfy the language of the statute". Scrutton, L.J. while agreeing with
the above views has add.ed that Section 4 was not intended to cover the
conviction of a crime with which the premises have nothing to do
H beyond merely being the scene of its commission. Atkin, L.J. has also
reiterated the above views.
A.R. KARLEKAR v. SMT. J.R BEDEKAR [SHETIY, J.] 157

With due regard to these principles and giving the matter the A
best consideration, it seems to us that Section 13(1)(c) was not
intended to be a moral code of conduct for the tenant. For each and
every offence committed ·at the premises, the tenant cannot be
exposed to the risk of eviction. The crime may be forced upon the
tenant at the premises by third parties. There may be casual· or Inci-
dental crimes. There may be technical offences connected with the B
trade or licence to trade. There may be crimes where use of the pre-
mises has nothing to do except being the scene of the offence. AU such
cases cannot satisfy the requirements of Section 13(l)(c). It is neces-
sary as Bankes, L.J. has observed in the Schneiders case that the
tenant must take advantage of his tenapcy of the premises and of the
opportunity they afford for committing the crime. Only such crimes c
could fall within the scope of Section 13(1)(c). Jfowever, there need
not be continuous or repeated user of the premises for committing
such crimes. In the instant case, the tenant used the premises for
carrying out illegal sale of adulterated food along with hi!! usl,lal busi-
ness in sweet meats and farsen. Indeed, be has used the premise~
deliberately and taken advantage of his tenancy for coIPmitting the
p
offences in the course of his trade. He cannot, therefore, legitimately
contend that he is not entitled to be evicted under Section 13(1)(c),

In this view of the matter, we dismiss this petition, but we make
no order a$ to costs.

V.P.R. Petition dismisse\i.

-
-