Holding

The eviction order is based solely on section 12(1)(f); therefore section 18 does not apply.

Summary

The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide need to demolish the building and construct a gold and silver ornaments factory. The lower courts upheld the eviction, citing sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h), and the tenants contended that if the eviction fell under 12(1)(h), section 18 would obligate the landlord to provide alternative accommodation of equal extent. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the landlord's requirement and held that the primary ground was a personal bonafide requirement, which falls squarely under section 12(1)(f). The mention of section 12(1)(h) in the orders does not convert the eviction to that ground, and consequently section 18 is not triggered. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether an eviction order based on a landlord's bonafide personal requirement for a new factory falls under section 12(1)(h) thereby attracting section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.
Whether the landlord's claim of bonafide requirement is to be treated as falling under section 12(1)(f) or 12(1)(h).
Interpretation of the effect of citing both sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) in an eviction order.

Legislation cited

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 13(1)(g), s. 13(1)(hh)
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 12(1)(f), s. 12(1)(h), s. 18

Subjects

evictionbonafide requirementlandlord-tenantsection 12section 18alternative accommodationSupreme Court

Judgment

945

A
RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC.
v.
KALYANMAL B

October JO, 1984

(A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJJ, JJ.)

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 196!-Sectlon 12 (l) (/)and C
(h)-An order made in eviction proceeding in which landlord established that he
bonafide required premises for his occupation is one under section 12 (/) (f) and
not under section 12 (!) (h).

The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellants-tenants under
section 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on
the main ground that the landlord bonafide required the pren1ises for locating D
his gold and silver ornaments factory after demolishing and reconstructing the
building. The courts below found that the requirement of the landlord was
bonafide and ordered eviction of the tenants under section 12 (l) (f) and (h) of
the Act. In these appeals the tenants contended that since the eviction ordered
was under section 12 (1) (h), section 18 of the Act was attracted and it was
obligatory on the part of the landlord to provide accommodation of equal
extent to the tenants in the new building to be constructed by him. E

Dismissing the appeals,
_,
' HELD : In Ramnilal P. Mehta v. Indradaman A1nrltlal this Court observed
that once the landlord establishes that he bonafide requires the premises for his
occupation, he is entitled to recover possession of it from the tenant under the
provisions of sub-clause (g) of section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and F
Lodging Hous.e, Rates Control Act, 1947 irrespective of the fact whether he
would occupy the premises without making any alterations or after 1naking
the necessary alterations. (9488-CJ

Ramnl/a/ P. Mehta v. lndradaman Amrlt/a/ Sheth, AIR 1964 SC 16 76,
referred to.
G
Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House, Rates
Control Act, 1947 corresponds to section 12 (1) (fl of the Madhya Pradesh
Accommodation Control Act. [948A]

Applying the above principle to the facts oftbe instant case, though the Courts
below. have passed the order of eviction under section 12 (I) (f) and (h), the
Court is of the opinion that the order of eviction is based really and aubstan-
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 s.c.a.

A Hally only under s.ection 12 (I) (f) of the Act. The fact that section 12 (1) (h)
is also mentioned 10 the order of the Court below does not make the order of
eTiction purely one under that section, for the main ground of requirement of
the landlord is bonafide personal requirement for locating his proposed factory
for the manufacture of gold or silver ornaments. Therefore there is no case
for the application of section 18 to the facts of the present case. (947F-GJ
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 750-53 of 1982.

Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated
the 3rd September, 1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
S.A. Nos. 249, 251-253 of 1980.
c WlTH

Civil Appeal No. 3357 of 1982.

Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated
the 24th August, 1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second
D Appeal No. 311 of 1982.

A.JC Sen, R.P. Singh Suman Kapoor. D.S. Mehra and R.K. Jain,
for the Appellants in C.A s. 750-53 of 1982.

P.K .Tain, for the Appellants in CA. 3357/82.

E U.R. La/it. Mrs. Suneeta Kirplani, Ashok Mahajan and S.K.
Gambhir for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the court was delivered by

VARDARAJAN, J. These appeals by special leave are by the
F tenants whose eviction has been ordered by all the courts below
under section 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommoda-
tion Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the respondent landlord
requires the premises bonafide for the purpose of having his gold
and silver ornaments factory after demolishing the present building
and putting up a new building at the place. The tenants were
carrying on various kinds of business in the premises. Their defence
G
was that the landlord has other alternative accommodation where
he could locate his proposed factory and that his requirement is not
bonafide. The courts below have found that the alternative
accommodation alleged by the appellants to be available to the
landlord is really a farm house which is used for the residential
H purpose, namely as accommodation for the farm servants of the
RAl>HEY SHYAM v. kALYAN MAL (Vardarajan, J.) 941

landlord and it is situated about these miles away from the town A
and near a burial ground in a lonely place and that it is also not a
suitable place where a factory for the manufacture of gold and silver
ornaments could be carried on without risk to life and property.
As regards the ground of bonafide requirement, the courts below
have found that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide and
they have ordered eviction of the appellants under section 12 (1) (f) B
(h) of the Act.

Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellants contended
b fore us that alternative accommodation is available and that it
is not poossible to accept the finding of the courts below that it is
not suitable. After going through the judgment of the first Appellate c
Court which has dealt with this question in depth we agree with
the courts balow that the alternative accommodation alleged to be
available to the landlord is really a farm house where the farm
servants of the landlord are accommodated and that it is not suitable
for the purpose for which the landlord requires accommodation. D

Mr. Sen submitted that the eviction ordered is under section
12 (I) (h) of the Act and that section 18 of the Act is attracted
and it is obligatory on the part of the landlord to provide
accommodation of equal extent to the tena!lts in the new building
to be constructed by him. The first Appellate Court has observed E
in its judgment that the order of eviction is sought on the main
ground of the bonafide requirement of the landlord. Therefore
~·
there is no case for the application of section 18 to the facts of the
present case. Though the courts below have passed the order of
eviction under section 12 (l·) (f) and (h) we are of the opinion that
the order of eviction is based really and substantially only under F
section 12 (!) (f) of the Act. The fact that section 12(1) (h) is also
mentioned in the orders of the courts below does not make the order
of eviction purely one under that section, for the main ground of
requirement of the landlord is bonafide personal requirement for
locating his proposed factory for the manufacture of gold and silver
ornaments. A case more or less similar on facts had come up before G
this Court in Racnnilal P. Mehta v. !ndradaman Amritlal Sheth( 1l which
arose from proceedings taken under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House, Rates Control Act (57 of 1947). There the eviction
was sought under section 13(1) (g) and 13 (I) (hh) of that Act.

(1) AIR 1964 SC 1676 H
948 SUPRBM~ COURT REPORTS (1985) 1 S.C.lt

A Section 13(1) (g) of that Act corresponds to section 12 (1) (f) of the
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act and Section 13(1)
(hh) of that Act corresponds to section 12 (I) (g) namely that the
building is required for effecting either repairs or alterations. This
Court has observed in that case that once the landlord establishes
that he bonafide requires the premises for his occupation, he is
B entitled to recover possession of it from the tenant under the
provisions of sub-clause (g) of section (13) (I) irrespective of the fact
whether he would occupy the premises without making any altera-
tions or after making the necessary alterations.

Though the facts of that case are slightly different in that the
c requirement was for occupation after making some alterations where
as in the present case the requirement is for locating the landlord's
factory after demolishing and re-constructing the building, the
principle deducible from that decision would apply to the facts of
even these case. We agree with Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned counsel
D for the respondent landlord that the order of eviction is based mainly
under section 12(1) (f) of the Act and that from the mere fact that
section 12(1)(h) also is added would not make the order of
eviction only one under section I2(l)(h) of the Act and section 18
of the Act will not be attracted. This fact was not raised in the
courts. below, perhaps due to proper undertaking of this position.
E For these reasons the appeals fail and are dismissed but under the
circumstances of the case without costs.

H.S.K. Appeal dismissed.