Holding

The landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) as his claim is bona fide and he satisfies the obligations of Section 18A.

Summary

The landlord of an eight‑room building filed seven suits under Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 seeking eviction of tenants for rebuilding. The trial court dismissed the suits for lack of proof of a bona‑fide rebuilding need and financial capacity, and the High Court affirmed the dismissal, refusing fresh evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the law on eviction for reconstruction is settled and that the landlord had shown a genuine need, financial means, and willingness to satisfy Section 18A by providing tenants with suitable accommodation. The Court allowed the appeals, directing the trial court to pass eviction decrees under Section 13(1)(f) and to ensure tenants are reinstated in the reconstructed building, with a modified plan to give them at least 50% of their current area. The judgment clarifies that giving up a claim for own occupation does not preclude a bona‑fide rebuilding claim and that fresh evidence may be admitted when relevant.

Issues considered

The landlord's claim for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) is bona fide despite having abandoned the claim for own occupation under Section 13(1)(ff).
Whether the landlord must prove that the existing building is structurally unsound or that demolition is necessary.
Whether the landlord must demonstrate financial capacity to undertake reconstruction.
Whether fresh evidence can be adduced in appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.
The extent of the landlord's obligation under Section 18A to reinstate tenants in the reconstructed premises.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLI Rule 27
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956s. 13(1)(f), s. 13(1)(ff), s. 18A

Subjects

evictionreconstructionWest Bengal Premises Tenancy ActSection 13Section 18Abona fidelandlord-tenantadditional evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27rent control

Judgment

A VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR
v.
MIS. VESTA TIME COMPANY

APRIL 5, 2007

B [H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; Ss. 13(1)(/) & 18(A):
c
Landlord filing Eviction Petition on ground of re-building/
reconstruction-Rejected by trial Court holding that neither the requirement
of rebuilding established nor financial capacity shown by the landlord-
Appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: LaW on eviction on
D ground of rebuilding settled-Landlord is under the obligation to put tenants
back in possession-Though landlord intends to occupy the floors other than
the ground floor for the residential purposes, but he is in a position to satisfy
the requirement of s. l 8A of the Act-Therefore, it could not be held that the
claim for eviction on ground of rebuilding is not bonajide-High Court was
not justified in not accepting the evidence produced by the landlord to show
E that he has means to undertake the reconstruction-Thus, landlord had
made out grounds for eviction uls. 13(1)(/) of the Act-However, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the
landlord to slightly alter the plan and adJU:St the tenants on ground floor;
if need arise-Landlord is entitled to decrees for eviction under s.13 (1)(/)
F of the Act-Trial Court is directed to pass decrees and consequential orders
in terms of s. l 8A of the Act when moved in that behalf by the landlord.

Seven suits were filed by the landlord of a line building consisting of
eight rooms for eviction of the tenants on the ground of rebuilding under
Section 13(l)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Trial Court
G rejected the claim for eviction and dismissed the suit holding that the
requirement for rebuilding has not been established by the landlord; and th.at
the landlord had not shown the financial capacity to rebuild. It appeals before
the High Court, the landlord invoked Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence in that court in the form of
a renewed approved plan for the construction of the building and documents
I-I 926
--f

-. _,, VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR 1•. VESTA TIME COMPANY 927
for allegedly showing his financial capacity to rebuild. The High Court A
dismissed the appeals holding that no ground was made out by the landlord to
permit him adducing of fresh evidence in appeals. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant-landlord contended that both the trial court and the High Court
were in error in dismissing the claim for eviction under Section 13(l)(f) of
the Act especially in the context of the law laid down by this Court in Vijay B
Singh Etc. Etc. v. Vijaylakshmi Ammal, [1996) Supp. 7 S.C.R. 385; that it was
not necessary for the landlord to show that the building was about to fall down
while seeking a decree for eviction under Section 13(l)(f) of the Act; that all
relevant circumstances had to be considered while entertaining a claim under
Section 13(1 )(t) of the Act; and that what the landlord has given up was the
need to occupy the entire building after reconstruction and had expressed
c
his willingness to give back the"ground floor to the tenants by confining his
claim to one under Section 13(l)(f) of the Act.

Respondent-tenants submitted that the Courts below have rightly
construed the pleadings in the plaint and have correctly understood the D
'(' consequences of the landlord giving up its case for eviction on the ground of
own occupation; that the two claims were inextricably interlinked in the case
and when one of them falls, the other had automatically to fall; that the building
was structurally sound; that the offer to put the tenants back in possession of
30% of the areas now occupied by them, was not in consonance with the spirit
of Section ISA of the Act; and that though a tenant may no be in a position to E
insist that he must have be identical area in the reconstruction building also,
when the whole area could not be reconstructed in the light of the relevant
building laws, that would not mean that the tenants will be unreasonably
deprived of the areas in their possession just to suit the convenience of the
landlord.
, . __,,
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The law on the adjudging of a claim for eviction by a landlord
on the ground of reconstruction or rebuilding is settled. (Para 9) (935-B)

VijaySingh Etc. Etc. v. Vijaylakshmi Ammal, [1996) Supp. 7 S.C.R. 385, G
followed.

.r Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, [1962) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 623 and S. Venugopal v.
A. Karruppusami & Anr., [2006) 4 S.C.C. 507, relied on.

Kalliani & Ors. v. Madhavi & Ors., (1970) K.L.T. 257, referred to. H'
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.
,'
A 1.2. The trial court and th~ High Court were, to a great extent, carried
a~ay by the fact that the landlord gave up his claim for eviction under Section
13(1)(ft) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, even while attempting to
pursue his claim for eviction under Section 13(1)(f). No doubt, there is some
confused pleading by the landlord in the plaint by mixing up the claim for
B eviction under Section 13(l)(ff) and Section 13(1 )(f) of the Act. But all the
same, by the time the matter came up for trial, both sides knew that the claim
was based solely on the ground under Section 13(1)(f), namely, bona fide need
for rebuilding after demolition of the existing structure. The landlord had
realized his obligation to put the tenants back in possession in terms of Section
18A of the Act. Therefore, when the parties went to trial, the issue was really
C the claim for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act and it was so
understood by both the parties. [Para 11] (937-D-E)

1.3. No doubt, the landlord still intends to occupy the floors other than
the ground floor for residential purposes. But, so long as he is in a position
to. satisfy the requirement of Section 18A of the Act consistent with the
D building to be put up in terms of the relevant building laws, it could not be
held that the claim for eviction on the ground of rebuilding is not bona fide.
(Para 12) (937-F]

1.4. An intention to put the building to better use by way of earning
better income consistent with the developments in the locality, cannot be held
E to be not a bona fide i.nt«:.ntion, unless of course there is some clear material
negativing the bonafides of such an intention. Nothing could be seen in the
present case which would militate against the bonafides of that intention of
the landlord. (Para 12] [937-H; 938-A)
.,
1.5. It is no doubt true that a shop room is in possession of the landlord,
F
the same having been vacated by a tenant and the claim for eviction relates to r
the other seven rooms in the possession of tenants. Even if a staircase is
provided in that portion in the possession of the landlord, the question still
remains whether he could be permitted to put up one or more floors in the
building as proposed by him in view of the relevant Building Rules and their
G possible violation. Thus, viewed from these angles, which are relevant
considerations as indicated by t~e decisions referred to by this court, it cannot
be said that the need put forward by the landlord is not a bona fide one.
[Para 12] (938-A-C) .....

1.6. The landlord in his evidence has held out that he has the means to
H undertake the reconstruction. Before the Appellate Court, he has also
VISHWAMITRARAMKUMAR1•. VESTATIMECOMPANY 929

produced some evidence in that regard. These aredays when finances for such A,
construction activity are more easily available as judicially noticed by one of
the decisions. There is no justification for doubting the financial capacity of
the landlord to rebuild. The landlord has shown that he has got the validity of
the approved plan for rebuilding extended. The High Court was not justified
in not accepting the evidence produced by the landlord in appeal The landlord B;
has made out the ground for eviction under Section 13(1 )(t) of the Act on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case. Hence, finding of the High Court
is reversed in that regard. [Para 13) [93S-E-F)

2. Under Section ISA of the Act, the landlord in acase of eviction under
Section 13(l)(f) of the Act has the obligation to put the tenants back in 0 ·.·
possession of rooms in the reconstructed building, that is an obligation
attached to any decree for eviction that may be passed under Section 13(1)(t)
of the Act. Certainly, any attempt to defeat that obligation under Secti()n 18A
of the Act cannot be encouraged and should be put down with an iron hand.
(Para 14) (938-(i)

3.1. When the new construction to be put up consists only of a plinth
area of about 55% of the existing construction, it will be reasonable for the
tenants to be expected to be put back in possession of at least 50% of the

.. areas now in their occupation. (Para 15) (939-D)

3.2. The landlord has also to provide a staircase or a lift well and for E 1

that reasonable space on the ground floor is required. Under the circumstance,
it will be appropriate to direct the landlord to slightly alter his plan so that
after accommodating the tenant running a Pan Shop in a small area, the rest
of the tenants could be provid~ with 50% of the areas now occupied by them,
by accommodating, if need be, one or two three of them (tenants holding the F
... I
larger extents) on the first floor. For this, the landlord will seek a slightorly
modified plan from the concerned Authority which will grant it expeditiously
in the interests of the tenants and will ensure that all the Building Laws are
respected by the landlord while constructing. The modified plan will be
produced by the landlord before the trial court so as to enable that court to
pass formal decrees for eviction and consequential orders for the tenants ~ing. G,
put back in possession in the reconstructed building as directed above in terms
of Section ISA of the Act. [Para 15] [939-F-G) ....
I.

3.3. It is trusted that the concerned Authority when approached in that
behalf will take note of the fact that the direction of this Court is in the H,
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A interests of the sitting tenants in the building and that the little modification
needed in the Plan is permitted without violating any of the Building Laws.
· ·, (Para 15) (939-G; 940,.A]

3.4. The landlord ~s entitled to decrees for evic~ion under Section 13(l)(f}
.of the Act. The trial Court is directe_d to expeditiously, pass decrees and
B _consequential orders in terms of Section 18A o~ the Act when moved in that
. behalf by_ the landlo~d and to pass t~e consequential decrees.
(Para 16) (940-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTI.ON: Civil Appeal No. 1829 of2007 .
•
c From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2005 of the High Court
of ~olkata at Kolkata in F'.A. No. 9 of 1997. . ' · .

. WITH

C.A. Nos.· 1830-1835 of2007.
D
Ranjit Kumar Sr. Adv:, Dhruv Mehta,· Hiren Dasan, Harshvardhan Jha, .,_
Yashraj Singh Deora and Sarla Chandra for the Appellant.

J. Gupta Sr. Adv., Rana. Mukherjee, Sid_dhar:fh. Gautam and Goodwill
Indeeevar for the Respondent.
E
The -Judgment
'
.
. of the Court was.delivered by :
·' ~
.
P.K· BALASUBRAMANYAN;J. I :Leave granted: "
.. ,
2. Seven suits were filed by the landlord of a line building consisting
F of eight· rooms, for eviction of the tenants on the ground of rebuilding under
Section 13(I)(t) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred.to as, '~the Act"). The relevant pleading in the plaint was not happy
and the claim for rebuilding was mixed up with the requirement for own
occupation, a ground covered by Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. At the stage
G of trial or even before, the landlord gave tip the claim under Section 13(1)(ft)
of the Act of reasonably requiring· 'the suit premises for its own use and
purpose. It may be mentioned that the landlord is said to be a partnership firm.
I" l

3. In support of the claim for eviction under Section 13(1)(t) of the Act,
it was pleaded that the. building was 100 years old; that it was situate in a
H mixed locality but mainly residential; that even at the time of the purchase of
VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR v. VESTA TIME COMPANY [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.J93 J'

the building, the intention of the landlord was to reconstruct the building and A
occupy a portion of it, being the upstair portion of the building; that the claim
for eviction on the ground of rebuilding was bona fide; and that the landlord'
was entitled to a decree for eviction considering the entire circumstances1
available. It was also disclosed that one of the rooms in the building was in,
the possession of the landlord, the same having been surrendered by a tenant.
earlier and that after reconstruction, the landlord would be in a position to B
provide separate rooms to the seven tenants remaining, but that the area to '
be given to each tenant, would be only 30% of what they now held in the ·
building. It was also brought out that the entire land was occupied by the ·
building and there was not even a staircase to go to the roof of the building ·
and the only way to reach the roof was by the use of a ladder. It was further C
brought out that as per the rules existing, a car parking facility in the basement ,
has to be provided and construction could be only in about 55% of the area
presently occupied by the I 00 years old building. In evidence, one of the
partners examined on behalf of the landlord stated that the landlord was '
willing to give 30% of the area presently occupied by each tenant in the '
· reconstructed building and the landlord proposed to occupy the first, second , D
and third floors intended to be put up, leaving the ground floor for occupation
by the tenants.

4. The tenants resisted the separate suits. They questioned the bona ·
jides of the claim made by the landlord. They pointed out that the landlord E
having given up the claim for eviction on the ground of own occupation had
become disentitled to any relief at all in the suits since the need for rebuilding
was interlinked with the need for own occupation projected in the plaint.
While being examined, the landlord was asked questions about the financial
capacity to rebuild and even questions on the title of the firm as set up in
the plaint. In his evidence, one of the tenants examined, stated that the ;F
building did not require reconstruction and that it was not possible to cany
on the business that is being carried on in the building in only 30% of the
area presently occupied by that tenant. It was brought out that out of the
seven tenants, one was running a Pan Shop and the other six were running
watch sales cum repair shops.
G
5. The suits were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment
by the trial court. The trial court held that the plaintiff finn was the owner of
the building and there subsisted the relationship of landlord and tenant
· between the firm and the tenants. It further held that the premises is a one
storeyed building having no vacant space on the side, back or front and the ~
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A building covered the entire land. The building had no staircase of its own for
going to the roof and one had to put up a ladder to climb on to the roof. The
suit building was situated in a predominantly commercial area. It was evident
that the proposed building will
have a car parking space in the basement and
the ground floor will be used for shop rooms and the upper floors will be for
B residential purposes. It was also evident that the landlord would be able to
accommodate the existing tenants in the ground floor only to the extent of
30% of the area at present in their occupation. Though the building was 100
years old, the landlord had not got the building inspeckd by any Engineer
to report about the physical condition of the building. The trial court rejected
the claim for eviction by finding that the requirement for rebuilding has not
C been established by the landlord. The trial court also found that the landlord
had not shown the financial capacity to rebuild. The suits were dismissed.
The landlord filed appeals in the High Court. In the appeals, the landlord
invoked Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to adduce
additional evidence in that court in the form of a renewed approved plan for
the construction of the building and documents for allegedly showing the
D financial capacity of the landlord to rebuild. The High Court took the view
that no ground was made out for permitting the adducing of fresh evidence
in appeals. The High Court, reiterating the reasons given by the trial court,
dismissed the appeals. The High Court was of the view that since the plaintiff
had abandoned its case of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for a
E . residential purpose, it became apparent that it had no reasonable requirement
for the purpose of rebuilding the suit premises upon demolition of the existing
structure. Even while affirming the finding that the building was 100 years old,
the High Court held that there was no evidence about the condition of the
building, which would enable the court to hold that the claim for rebuilding,
upon demolition of the existing structure, was a reasonable necessity. After
F noticing Section 18A of the Act which entitled the tenants in case of eviction
for rebuilding, to get back the building after reconstruction, the High Court
held that the landlord had not made out a case for ·grant of a decree for
eviction under Section 13(l)(t) of the Act. It proceeded to say that no order
was required to be passed on the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the
G Code seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, in the light of the
finding that the landlord had not made out a case for rebuilding. It was thus
that the decrees of the trial court were confirmed and the appeals dismissed.

6. Section l3(l)(t) of the Act providing one of the grounds for eviction
reads:
H
--r
VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR 1·. VESTA TIME COMPANY [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.J933
.,.
"13( 1)(t). Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3A) and Section A
18, where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for
purposes of building or rebuilding or for making thereto substantial
additions or alterations, and such building or rebuilding or additions
or alterations, cannot be carried out without the premises being
vacated."
B
Section 18A of the Act confers a right on the tenant who is evicted under
.....
Section 13(1 )( t) of the Act, to be restored to possession in the reconstructed
... building as laid down therein. The court has to specify, while passing a decree
for eviction under Section 13(1)(t) of the Act, the period within which the
rebuilding has to be done, subject to a right in the court to extend the time
in appropriate cases. On completion of the building, the premises has to be
c
offered to the tenant. If the landlord does not put the tenant in possession,
the tenant is entitled to approach the Rent Controller for a direction in that
behalf and for consequences arising therefrom. In other words, the Act
confers a right on the tenant evicted under Section 13(1 )(t) of the Act to be
put back in possession of the premises after its rebuilding. The provision also D
contemplates that in appropriate cases, the tenant may be put in possession
of such part of the rebuilt premises as the Rent Controller may specify. As
there is no argument based on Section 13(3A) of the Act, it is not relevant
for the disposal of these appeals.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff - appellant contended that the trial E
court and the High Court were in error in dismissing the claim for eviction
under Section l3(1)(t) of the Act especially in the context of the law laid down
·- by this Court in Vijay Singh Etc.Etc. v. Vijaylalakshmi Amma/, [1996] Supp.
7 S.C.R. 385. It is submitted that it was not necessary for the landlord to show
that the building was about to fall down while seeking a decree for eviction
F
: under Section 13( l )(t) of the Act. All relevant circumstances had to be
considered while entertaining a claim under Section 13(l)(t) of the Act. The
bona tides of the claim of the landlord in the context of whether the object
was only to get rid of the tenants, the age and condition of the building, the
financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building, the
locality in which the building is situated are all relevant aspects to be considered G
by the court. Here, the court had misunderstood the case of the landlord and
has erred in proceeding on the basis that since the landlord has given up his
..... claim for eviction under Section 13(l)(ff) of the Act for own occupation, the
landlord could not pursue his claim for eviction under Section 13(l)(t) of the
Act. Learned counsel submitted that what the landlord has given up was the
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A need to occupy the entire ~uilding after reconstruction and had expressed his
willingness to give back the ground floor to the tenants by confining his claim
to one under Section l3(l)(f) of the Act. The decrees declining relief call for
interference. Learned counsel for the tenants on the other hand submitted
that the trial court and the High Court have rightly construed the pleadings
B in the plaint and have correctly, understood the consequences of the landlord
giving up its case for eviction on the ground of own occupation. The two
claims were inextricably interlinked in the case and when one of them falls,
the other had automatically to fall. Even otherwise, the landlord had not
established that it had the financial capacity to rebuild. The building was
structurally sound. The offer to put the tenants back in possession of 30%
C of the areas now occupied by them, was not in consonance with the spirit
of Section l 8A of the Act. Though a tenant may not be in a position to insist
that he must have the identical area in the reconstruction building also, when
the whole area could not be reconstructed in the light of the relevant building
laws, that would not mean that the tenants will be unreasonably deprived of
the areas in their possession just to suit the convenience of the landlord. The
D High Court was also justified in not permitting the landlord to adduce additional
evidence in the appeals and even otherwise, what was sought to be produced
as additional evidence was inadmissible material and it did not in any manner
show that the landlord had the financial capacity to reconstruct the building
as proposed.
E 8. During the course of the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the
landlord that the landlord was in occupation of 700 square feet as surrendered
by one of the tenants and the landlord was willing, while reconstructing the
ground floor, to give the remaining tenants that area also with the result that
the areas to be put in their possession would be something more than 30%
F of the present areas occupied by them. It was submitted that the carpet area
y
at present available was 2200 square feet and after reconstruction, it would
come to 738 square feet only and this entire area other than the area needed
for constructing a convenient staircase, the landlor~ was willing to divide
among the tenants thus giving up 236.50 square feet which the landlord was
G entitled to keep proporti~nately. It ~as submitt~d that o~ly a convenient :rrea
· needed for the construction of a starrcase for go mg upstarrs would be retained
by the landlord. On behalf of the tenants, it was submitted that the tenants
were willing to suffer decrees for eviction provided the landlord was willing
to give them equal areas in the reconstructed building and that any reduction
in the respective areas occupied by tenants would practically put them out
H of business and hence the tenants were not in a position to agree to decrees
VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR 1•. VEST A TIME COMPANY [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.J93 5

for eviction. It was pointed out that the landlord had not made a bona fide A
attempt to ensure that a plan for rebuilding is prepared causing the least
prejudice to the tenants as is evident from the evidence of the Architect P.W.
5 and in that context, the present offer was not a reasonable one which could
be accepted by the tenants.

9. The law on the adjudging of a claim for eviction by a landlord on the B
ground of reconstruction or rebuilding is settled. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal,
[1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 623, this Court held:

"The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the
claim. To reach this conclusion, obviously the Controller must be
satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, and this C
can only be established by looking at all the surrounding
circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the
possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction,
the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough that the landlord
comes forward, and says that he entertains a particular intention, ,D
however strongly, said to be entertained by him. The clause speaks
not of the bona tides of the landlord, but says, on the other hand, that
the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction
and re-erection must be bona fide, that is to say, honest in the
circumstances. It is impossible, therefore, to hold that the investigation
by the Controller should be confined only to the existence of an E
intention to reconstruct, in the mind of the landlord. This intention
must be honestly held in relating to the surrounding circumstances."

In Kalliani & Ors. v. Madhavi & Ors., (1970) K.L.T. 257, a learned judge of
the Kerala High Court (as he then was) after referring to the decision in Neta F
Ram (supra) stated:

"It is obvious, therefore, that a wider and more realistic meaning must
be given to the expression "condition of the building". The social
purpose of this provision is to remove the road blocks in the way of
progress in building programmes. Old structures in newly developing G
areas may be like pimples on fair faces. Replacement and renewal of
obsolescent and unsightly buildings to make room for larger, modem
constructions is a social necessity, provided existing tenants are not
thrown into the streets. The "condition of the building" is a larger
concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and
allied factors. Where the building is very old and incongruous with H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A the social setting and the surroundings of the place, the Court has got
to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law. However,
the primary purpose of the statute viz., prevention of unreasonable
eviction must also infonn the Court when applying this provision."

In Vijay Singh (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court held:
B
"For recording a finding thaLrequirement--for demolition was bona
fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account : (1) bona fide
intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the
tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial
position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according
c to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the
illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before
an order is passed under Section 14(l)(b). No court can fix any limit
in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has
to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a
D conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent
Controller."

The principle stated in Vijay Singh (supra) was followed in S. Venugopal v.
A. Karruppusami & Anr., (2006] 4 S.C.C. 507, wherein the developments in the
surroundings areas was also taken into consideration while adjudging the
E bona fides of the claim for eviction on the ground of reconstruction.

10. Applying these tests to the facts of the present case, what do we
get? The building is admittedly l 00 years old. It is a single storeyed building.
There is no access by way of a staircase to go to the roof of the building.
The actual structure occupies the entire land leaving no further option for ·•
F addition to the existing structure. The building is in a fairly important locality
in the city of Calcutta. The area appears to be an area of mixed use, not totally
residential, not totally commercial. In this context, the landlord pleads that he
requires the building for putting up a four storeyed building after demolishing
the existing structure. He points out that as per the present Building Rules,
G he has to have a basement for car parking and he can have a construction
only in about 55% of the area of the land available. He intends to give the
existing tenants corresponding areas in the ground floor but reduced to 30o/~:'
of the area currently in their occupation in view of the building restrictions· ·
and intends to use the other floors for the residential purposes of the landlord.
The landlord is a firm of which two brothers are partners. As against this,
H what is pointed out is that the landlord has not made available any evidence

I
i
VISHWA MITRA RAM KUMAR"· VESTA TIME COMPANY [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J .J93 7

,,, to show that the building was in such a physical condition that it required A
... reconstruction. There was nothing to show that the building was structurally
weak. The landlord was a builder and his idea was merely to evict the tenants
and this is clear from his original claim for eviction on the ground of bona
; fide need for own occupation under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act, which was
subsequently given up. The landlord had not led clear evidence to show that'
the firm has or the partners have the means to construct the proposed new B
building. No doubt, the landlord has an approved plan, the period of validity
of which stood subsequently extended, but in the proposed building, the
-.,.
tenants are to be allotted only areas equivalent to 30% of the areas presently
. occupied by them. This would make it impossible for the tenants to carry on
their existing businesses and the circumstances taken as a whole, would show c
that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide but was a mere pretext for
evicting the tenants.

11. We find that the trial court and the High Court were, to a great
extent, carried away by the fact that the landlord gave up his claim for eviction ·
under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act, even while attempting to pursue his claim ,D
for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. No doubt, there is some
confused pleading by the landlord in the plaint by mixing up the claim for
eviction under Section 13(1)(ff) and Section 13(1 )(f) of the Act. But all the
same, by the time the matter came up for trial, both sides knew that the claim
'
___, was based solely on the ground under Section 13(l)(f), namely, bona fide
E
need for rebuilding after demolition of the existing structure. The landlord had
realised his obligation to put the tenants back in possession in terms of
Section I SA of the Act. Therefore, when the parties went to trial, the issue

- f' ....,
was really the claim for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act and it was
so understood by both the parties.

12. No doubt, the landlord still intends to occupy the floors other than
the ground floor for residential purposes. But, so long as he is in a position
F

to satisfy the requirement of Section 18A of the Act consistent with the
building to be put up in terms of the relevant building laws, it could not be
held that the claim for eviction on the ground of rebuilding is not bona fide.
After all, the building is 100 years old. It is situated in a growing city like G
Calcutta and it is fetching a meagre income for the landlord by way of rents.
" ~

Surely, an intention to put the building to better use by way of earning better
income consistent with the developments in the locality, cannot be held to
---... Jfr be not a bona fide intention, unless of course there is some clear material
negativing the bona fides of such an intention. We do not see anything in
»
-t-
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2007) 4 S.C.R.

A the present case which would militate against the bona tides of that intention
:--
of the landlord. Coupled with this, is the fact that the landlord wants to ~

\
occupy the upstair portions of the building after reconstruction. Clearly, he
cannot do so now, by building over the existing structure, in view of its
location and in view of the absence of a staircase to go upstairs and the age
of the structure. It is no doubt true that a shop room is in possession of the
B landlord, the same having been vacated by a tenant and the claim for eviction ,'-
relates to the other seven rooms in the possession of tenants. Even if a
staircase is provided in that portion in the possession of the landlord, the
question still remains whether he could be permitted to put up one or more
.
floors in the building as proposed by him in view of the relevant Building
~

c Rules .and their possible violation. Thus, viewed from these angles, which are
relevant considerations as indicated by the decisions referred to by us earlier,
it cannot be said that the need put forward by the landlord is not a bona fide
one. We are therefore of the view that the High Court and the trial court were
not justified in finding that the bona tides of the claim under Section 13(1 )(f) ---..,.
j
of the Act for eviction of the tenants is not made out by the landlord.
D
13. The landlord in his evidence has held out that he has the means to
undertake the reconstruction. Before the Appellate Court, h~ has also produced -...
some evidence in that regard. These are days when finances for such
~
construction activity are more easily available as judicially noticed by one of
the decisions. We see no justification for doubting the financial capacity of
E ;..
the landlord to rebuild. The landlord has shown that he has got the validity
of the approved plan for rebuilding extended. The High Court, in our view,
was.not justified in not accepting the evidence produced by the landlord in
appeal. We are satisfied that the landlord has made out the ground for ,.
eviction under Section 13{l)(f) of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances ,.
F of the case. We reverse the finding of the High Court in that regard.

14. Under Section l 8A of the Act, the landlord in a case of eviction ,..- );-
under Section 13(l)(f) of the Act has the obligation to put the tenants back
~·
in possession of rooms in the reconstructed building, that is an obligation
attached to any decree for eviction that may be passed under Section 13(l)(f)
G of the Act. Certainly, any attempt to defeat that obligation under Section 18A
of the Act cannot be encouraged and should be put down with an iron hand. ~
In other words, the landlord will be pinned down to his obligations under i--

Section l 8A of the Act and would not be allowed to extricate himself from-
it or d~lay the performance of his obligations by resort to devious means. But, 4-; -

H that is different from saying that because of the right available to the tenant
VISHWAMITRARAMKUMAR1·. VESTA TIMECOMPANY[BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.) 939

~
under Section ISA of the Act, an order for eviction under Section 13(l)(t) of A
the Act cannot be passed unless the building is about to fall down over the
head of the occupant.

15. It is the case of the landlord that under the present Building Rules,
.. he has to use the basement for providing parking space and construction can
be made only in about 55% of the land available on demolition of the existing B
building. It is not shown that this claim is not true, or that it is unsustainable. I
. No doubt, P.W. 5 was not instructed to prepare the plan ~ith the obligation
to the tenants in mind. It is the further case of the landlord that the landlord
is in a position to provide the tenants, seven in number, only with areas
roughly corresponding to 30% of the areas 'occupied by them. The landlord
has offered that the area in its possession on the ground floor, could also be
c
made available to the tenants. Even then, the area available to the tenants
would fall short of the areas that are now in their possession or that may
normally be allotted to them. When the new construction to be put up
consists only of a plinth area of about 55% of the existing construction, it
will be reasonable for the tenants to be expected to be put back in possession D
of at least 50% of the areas now in their occupation. According to the
-.., ..
landlord, he proposes to provide all the tenants with rooms in the ground
floor. It is seen that one of the rooms is occupied by a tenant who runs a
Pan Shop therein and he is at present in occupation of an area of 5 square
feet only. Two of the tenants are in occupation of only about 62 square feet;
/
one of the tenants is in occupation of 184 square feet and another in occupation
E
of 292 square feet. One of the tenants is in occupation of 315 square feet and
the other is in occupation of 580 square feet. The landlord has also to provide

- a staircase or a lift well and for that reasonable space on the ground floor is
required. We think that it will be appropriate to direct the landlord to slightly
alter his plan so that aaer accommodating the tenant running a Pan Shop in F
a small area, the rest of the tenants could be provided with 50% of the areas ·
now occupied by them, by accommodating, if need be, one or two or three
of them (tenants holding the larger extents) on the first floor. For this, the
landlord will seek a slightly modified plan from the concerned Authority
which will grant it expeditiously in the interests of the tenants and will ensure
that all the Building Laws are respected by the landlord while constructing.
G
The modified plan will be produced by the landlord before the trial court so
as to enable that court to pass formal decrees for eviction and consequential
~

..
~
orders for the tenants being put back in possession in the reconstructed
building as directed above in terms of Section l 8A of the Act. We trust that
the concerned Authority when approached in that behalf will take note of the H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

.A fact th4lt our direction is in the interests of the sitting tenants in the building
and that the little modification needed in the Plan is permitted without violating
any of the Building Laws. If the Plan as such does not require any alteration
in the light of our directions as per the relevant Building laws treating it as
only an internal adjustment of the space on the ground floor and on the frrst
floor, it will be open to the landlord to adopt such stand before the trial court
B and seek decrees for eviction with consequential directions in terms of Section
I SA of the Act. In that case, the trial court will satisfy itself on that aspect.
We are sure that the trial court will expedite the passing of formal decrees for
eviction in terms of Section 13(l)(t) of the Act in the context of Section ISA
of the Act by imposing whatever conditions that are required in terms of the
C statute.

16. We, therefore, allow these appeals and hold that the landlord is
entitled to decrees for eviction under Section l3(l)(t) of the Act. We direct
the trial court to expeditiously pass decrees and consequential orders in terms
of Section 18A of the Act when moved in that behalf by the landlord: We
·D direct the trial court to pass the consequential decrees within three months
of it being approached either with the existing plan or with the modified plan
by the landlord as we have directed above. The parties will appear before the
trial court for s~eking appropriate directions for further appearance on.14.52007.

S.K.S. Appeals allowed.
E