Allowed¶55

Bapubhai Mohanbhai v. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir

Supreme Court26 Aug 19751975 INSC 177 · [1976] 1 S.C.R. 4111975 INSC 177

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlord-tenant eviction; reasonable and bona fide requirement under s. 13(1)(g) Bombay Rent Act; change of user from residential to non-residential barred by s. 25; penal consequence (imprisonment/fine) under s. 25(2); requirement for office, fair-price shop, godown, tailoring class held not reasonable; decree refused despite genuine business need; interplay of non-obstante clause in s. 13(1) with rest of Act; Gujarat; Supreme Court, August 26, 1975; Chandrachud, J.; appeals allowed, tenants' possession preserved.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside; the suits filed by the respondent against the appellants directed to stand dismissed; respondent to pay the costs of the appeals (one set of hearing fee only). ¶55

Bapubhai Mohanbhai versus Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir — Supreme Court (1976) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the reasonableness of the landlord's requirement under s. 13(1)(g) is to be judged in the light of the prohibition in s. 25 (against use of residential premises for non-residential purposes), or whether s. 25 is to be kept out of consideration, as held by the High Court. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The High Court's approach - testing whether s. 13(1) can be made subject to s. 25 - was misconceived; the true question is not which provision overrides the other. Even conceding s. 13(1) its rightful precedence over the rest of the Act except s. 15, according to its own terms the court has to be satisfied that the requirement of the landlord is reasonable.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Under s. 13(1)(g) it is not sufficient for a landlord to establish that the premises are required by him; it must further be shown that the requirement is reasonable and bona fide. The respondent's very success in proving it needed the premises for a non-residential purpose amounted to failure to establish the ingredients of s. 13(1)(g), because the statute itself forbids converting residential premises to non-residential use.

¶41

Key takeaways

A requirement which runs in the teeth of section 25 and which, if established, may expose the landlord to prosecution cannot be called reasonable.ratio¶49
If the respondent fails, it is not because s. 25 overrides s. 13(1) but because of its failure to prove the reasonableness of its requirement.ratio¶50
Whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable is to be judged from all the facts and circumstances of the case; a highly relevant circumstance bearing on reasonableness is that the purpose for which possession is sought is one for which the premises cannot be used save on pain of penal consequences.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947 (in force in Gujarat) - ss. 13(1)(g), 25 - Eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. Premises were admittedly used for residential purposes on February 13, 1948 when the Act came into operation; s. 25(1) prohibits a landlord from using or permitting the use of such premises for a non-residential purpose, and s. 25(2) makes contravention punishable with imprisonment up to three months or fine or both. The respondent-trust sought possession for an office, fair-price shop, godown, tailoring and sewing class etc. Held, by Chandrachud, J.: under s. 13(1)(g) mere proof of requirement is insufficient; the requirement must be reasonable and bona fide, and a requirement for a purpose the statute forbids - on pain of prosecution - cannot be reasonable. The High Court's approach, asking whether s. 13(1) is subject to s. 25, was misconceived; even granting s. 13(1) priority except for s. 15, failure stemmed from want of reasonableness, not from s. 25 overriding s. 13(1). Courts ought not to pass a decree which, if honoured, would attract penal consequences. View of Bombay High Court in CRA No. 2172 of 1957, of the Gujarat High Court Single Judge in CRA No. 896 of 1963, and in Laxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Mohan Govind Diwanji, 74 B.L.R. 186, approved. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; suits dismissed with costs.

BAPUBHAI MOHANBHAI

•MAHILA SAHAKARI UDYOG MANDIR

¶6

August 26, 1975

¶7

	B c D E F	[A.N.RAY,C.J.,K.K.MATHEWANDY.V.CHANDRACO:HUD,JJ.J Bon1bay, Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVJJof 1947-S.13,25,-Scope of. Section13of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of1947(whichwasthe Act in force in Gujarat) enumerates the grounds on which a landlord may obtain possessionof'the premises let out to a tenant. Clause(g)of that section provides that the landlord can obtain possessiononyif he satisfies the Court that the premises are reasonably and _bonafide_required for occupationbyhimself. Section25provides that a landlord cannot use nor can he permit tobeused for a non-residential purpose any premises which, on the date when the Act came into· force, were usedfor a residential purpose. Sub-sectioii (2)ofthis Section makescon travention of the provisionsofsub-s.(I)punishablew-ithimprisonment. On the date on which the Act came into operation, the premises in dispute belonging to the respondent were used for residential purposes.The respondent sought possession on the ground that it wanted them for itsoffice,. for running a fafr price shop, for establishing a godown, for conducting a tailoring and sewing class and. such other purposes. The trial court and the firstappellate court found that the respondent needed the premises for its business; but disn1issed the suits on the ground that inviewof the provisions ofs.25ofthe Act the requirement could notbesaid tobe·reasonable and bdnafide. The High Court, while accepting that the premises were required by the respondent for its business, took the view that since the legislature did not subject the right conferred on the landlord bys.13( 1) to .any other provisionsavethe one contained in s.15. s.25 cannotbepermittedtoover- ride s.13(1). A1lowingthe appeal, HELD:Though the respondent requiredthepremises for the purposesof itsbt1siness,no 4ecrce for possession couldbepassed in its favouras its requirement could notbesaid tobereasonable.Th-ereguirement runsacro:s'.'t the statutory vrohibition andis,therefore, notreasonabl"e. [415-E] (1) Under s.13(1)(g) itisnot sufficient for a landlord to establish that the .premises wererequires;lby him but it has toeshown further that the requirementisreasonable and_boi1a fide._ The requtrement of the respondent iiithe instant case could notbecalled reasonable if the very statute under which it seeks relief contains an injunction that it shall not use residential premises for a non-residential purpose. Not only does the statutecontoiirian injunction against the userofresidential premises• for a non-residential pur- pose but it makes it penal for alandlodtousefor a non-residential purpose anypr_emiseswhich were used for a residential purpose on the date when the Act came into f9rce. [414C·E]
•	G H	(2)(a)The approach of the High Courtismisconceived. The true ques· tion for consideration is not whetherasbetween s.13(1) and s.25(1), one over-rides the other, and indeed, in view of the wordingofthe_non-obstane_ clause of s.13(1), the provisions of that section must have priority over the rest of the Act except for whatiscontained ins.15. But conceding to s.13(1) its riditfulpcedenceand granting that it stands .supreme exceptff:!rs.15. according toitsown terms the Court bas tobesatisfied that thequirement _of'_the landlordisreasonable. [4J5A-B] (b) If the respondent fails itisnot because s.25 overridess.13(1)but becauseofitsfailure to prove the reasonableness of its requirement. Whether the requirement of the landlordisreasonableornotistobejudged from all the facts and circumstances of the case and a truly relevant circumstance

¶8

[1976] 1 S.C.R.

¶9

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

412

.bearing on the reasonableness of the landlord's requiren1ent is that the purpose for which the possession waS sought was a purpose for which the premises .-could not be used save on pain oi' penal consequences. [415-Cl:!,l (3) Courts sought not to cons.true a statute in a manner which will encout- . age the· brea_ch of any of its provisions and a de_cree ought not to be passed· which, ii' honoured, will attract penal consequences. To pass a decree in favour of the respondent on the grounds accepted by the High Court is to invite the respondent to commit a breach of the statutory injQnction contained in ·s.25('1 ). [415-D] Laxn1i Co-oPerative Bank Ltd. v. Mohan Govind Diwanji, 74 B.L.R. 186, .approved. CIVIL AP~ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 574-575 of 1974. From the judgment and decree dated the 19th April, 1973 of the •Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application Nos. 1193 & 1194 of 1967. P. H. Parekh and Manju laitley, for the appellant. I. N. Shroff, for respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶18

CHANDRACHUD, J.-The appellants in these two appeals are monthly .tenants of the respondent, the Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir. The respondent filed suits against the appellants for possession of the pre.mises let out to them, on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground .that the premises Were reasonably and bona fide required by the respondent for its, own purposes. On both counts the trial court held . against the respondent and dismissed the suits. The 'decree of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the learned Assistant Judge, Surat ibut the High Court of Gujarat allowed the respondent's revision appli. cation and decreed the suits. On March 11, 1974 the High Court :granted to the appellants a certificate to appeal to this Court under tbe .amended Article 133(1) of the Constitution.

¶19

The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 'L VII of 194 7, is in force in Gujarat with certain modifications. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitaed increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of ithe tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the . Act. Section 13 of the Act sets out the various grounds on ·which a landlord may recover possession of the premises kt out to 1he itenant. Sub,section ( 1) clause (g) of that section provides :

"13. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but suhiect to the provisions of secfon 15, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied-* * * * * *"

¶24

BAPllllHA! v. MMI!LA S·'>!JAKARI (Chandrachud, J.)

¶25

4 I 3

¶26

¶27

"(g) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust;"

¶28

B Section 15 (I) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to any contract to the contrary, it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of the Act for any tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. Section 15(2) legalises subleases, assignments and transfers effected in favour of persons as have entered into possession and have continued in possession on the date of !he commencement of the Ordinance of 1959.

¶29

¶30

The trial court and the First Appellate Court found that the respondent required the premises for the purpose of its business but they dismissed the suits on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Act, the requirement could not be said to be reasonable and bona fide. The High Court accepted the finding of the courts below that the premises were required by the respondent for the purpose of its business but ii oiffered from them on the question of the applicability of section 25. The High Court has taken the view that section 13(1){g) is not subject to section 25 and therefore the question whether the requirement· of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide has to be decided apati fron1 the provisions of section 25. The correctness of this view is challenged by the tenants in these appeals.

¶31

¶32

The scheme of the Act is that ordinarily, the landlord shall not be entitled to evict a tenant so Jong as the latter pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and so long as he observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. This rule is enunciated in section 12(1). Section 13 of the Act is in the nature of an exception to section 12. It enumerates tlie grounds on which, notwithstanding the injunction contained in section 12, a landlord may obtain possession of the premises let out to the tenant. Under section 13 ( 1) ( g), the landlord can obtain possession only if he satisfies the court that the premises are required by him "reasonably and bona fide". If the issue as regar'ds the reasonableness of the landlord's requirement is to be decided without reference to the provision contained in section 25, the respondent would be entitled to succeed because all the three courts have found that the respondent requires the premises genuinely for occupation by itself for the purpose of its business ·and that the requirement, apart from section 25, is reasonable and bona fide. The short question for consideration in these appeals is whether the reasonableness of the landlord's requirement can be judged in the light of the provision contained in section 25 or whether, as held by the High Court, section 25 is to be kept out of way in judging that question.

-I G

By section 25, a landlord cannot use nor can be permit to be used 'for a non-residential purpose any ·premises which on the date when the Act came into force iwre used for a residential purpose. Under subl3-L839Sup.Clf75

¶37

[1976) 1 S.C.R.

¶38

SUpREME COURT REPORTS

¶39

414

¶40

section (2) of section 25, a landlord who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (J) is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. In the instant case, the premises were admittedly used for a residential purpose on February 13, 1948 being the date on which the Act came mto operation. It is plain from the language of section 25(1), that the respondent cannot convert the user of the premises from a residential to a nonresidential purpose. If it did so, it would be liable to he prosecuted and punished under section 25 (2).

¶41

The respondent sought possession of the premises kt out to the appellants and three other tenants on the ground that it wanted one room for its office, two rooms for running a fair-price grain-shop, two rooms for conducting a provision stores, two rooms for preparin.~ pickles, cleaning spices and for keeping the finished products for sale, two rooms for establishing a godown and some more space for conducting a tailoring and sewing class. The respondent succeeded in proving its reqnirement but its very success in establishing that it required the premises for a non-residential purpose is its failure to establish the ingredients of section 13 ( 1 )(g) of the Act. Under that provision, it is not sufficient for a landlord to establish that the prem;ses are reqnired by him but it has to be shown further that the requirement is reasonable and bona fide. The requirement of the respondent in the instant case cannot ever be called reasonable, if the very statute under which it seeks relief contains an injunction that it shall not use residential premises for a non-residential purpose. Not only does the statute contai_n an injunction against the user of residential premises for a non-residential purpose, but it makes it penal for a landlord to use for a non-residential purpose any premises which were used for a residential purpose on the date when the Act came into force. In the light of section 25 ( 1), granting a decree to the respondent for possession of the residential premises on the ground that it requires those premises for a non-residential purpose is to pave the way for its prosecution and punishment .under section 25(2). Jn fact, such a decrne would be self-defeating because. whereas the Jccree shall have been passed on tho ground that the respondent requires the premises for a non-re_sidential purpose, it will not be able to use those premises for the purpose for which the decree was granted, save on pain of prosecution.

¶42

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent places great reliance on the non-ohstante clause of section 13 ( I l and argues that the legislature having considered the question whether section 1 3 should be made subj-ect to any other law or to any other provision of the Act. came to the conclusion that it should be made subject to the provisions of section 15 only and therefore it would be wrong_ to subject the provisions contained in section 13(1) to section 25. The High Court also aoproached the problem before it by saviM that the material question for consideration was whether section 13 ( 1) can be made subject to section 25. This question was answered by the High Court by saving that since the legislature did not subiect the right conferred on the bndlmd by section 13 ( 1) to any other provision save the one contained in sec-

¶44

BAPUBHAI v. Ml\l!ILA sAJIAKARI (Chandrachud, J.)

415

" . ,, ..

A lion 15, section 25 cannot be pem1itted to override section 13(1). This approach, in our opinion, is misconceived. The true question for consideration is not whether as between section 13 (1) and section 25 (1) one overrides the other and indeed, in view of the wording of the nonobstante clause of section 13 ( 1), the provisions of that section must have priority over the res1i of the Act, except for what ii contained in section 15. But conceding to section 13(1) its rightful precedence and grant-

¶49

B ing that it stands supreme except for section 15, according to its own terms the court has to be satisfied that the requirement of the landlord is reasonable. A requirement which runs in the teeth of section 25 and which, if established, may throw the landlord open to the risk of a prosecution cannot be called reasonable. Therefore, if the respondent shall have failed, it is not.because section 25 overridos section 13

¶50

c ( 1) but because of its failure to prove the reasonableness of its requirement. Whether the requirement of the .landlord is reasonable or not is to be judged from all the facts and circumstances of the case and a highly relevant circumstance bearing on the reasonableness of the landlord's requirement is that the purpose for which the pos~ssion is sought is a purpose for which the premises cannot be used save on pain of penal consequences. Courts ought not to construe a statute in a man-

¶51

D ner which will encourage the breach of any of its provisions and, most certainly, a decree ought not to be passed which, if honoured, will attract penal consequences. To pass a decree in favour of the respondent on the grounds accepted by the High Court is to invite the respondent to commit a breach of the statutory injunction contained in section 25(1).

¶52

E In short, therefore, though the evidence Jed by the respondent is sufficient to prove that it requires the suit premises for the purpose of its business, no decree for possession can be passed in its favour as its requirement cannot be said to be reasonable. The requirement runs across a statutory prohibition and is therefore not reasonable.

¶53

F The view taken by the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 2172 of 1957 decided on September 3, 1959 and in L{nmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Moha11 Govind Diwanji(I), as also the view taken by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in ' Civil Revision Application No. 896 of 1963 decided on March 7, 1967, is in our opinion correct. The learned Judges of the Gujarat High •. Court were in error in the instant case in departing from that view .

¶54

¶55

For these reasons we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the suits filed by the respondent against the aopellants shall stand dismissed. Respondent shall pay td' the appclLints the costs of these appeals. One set of hearing: fee only. ~-·

¶56

H P.B.R.

¶57

Appeals a/ltJwed.

¶58

74 B.LR. 186.

Bapubhai Mohanbhai v. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapubhai Mohanbhai v. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Carew and Company Ltd. versus Union of India

Ishwari Yatayat Cooperative Society versus State Transport Appellate Authority and Others

V. a. Subhadra and Ors. versus a. Satyavan & Ors.

Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass versus Som Dass (Deceased) through His Chela Shiamdass

Visakhapatnam Municipality versus Kandregula Nukaraju & Ors.

Gajanan Dattatraya versus Sherbanu Hosang Patel & Ors.