1997 JTR(SC) 737
1997 AIR(SC) 2453 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2371 ; 1997 2 AllCJ 1162 ; 1997 2 CTC 456 ; 1997 ILR(Kar) 2359 ; 1997 5 JT 92 ; 1997 2 RCJ 134 ; 1997 2 RCJ 291 ; 1997 1 RCR(Rent) 624 ; 1997 3 Scale 705 ; 1997 5 SCC 315 ; 1997 3 SCR 984 ; 1997 2 UJ 64 ; 1997 KHC 910 ; 1997 5 Supreme 198 ; 1997 6 Supreme 112
1997(5) Supreme 198
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
M/s. Modern Tailoring Hall etc. -Appellants
versus
H.S. Venkuse & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12709-10 of 1996
with
C.A. Nos. 12711/96, 12712-12713/96
Decided on 24-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate, K.V. Vishwanathan and K.V. Venkataraman, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.N. Bhat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The two provisions, i.e., Section 21(1)(h) and 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986, are mutually exclusive and demolition and reconstruction of a premises by the landlord for his own use and occupation, after getting an order of eviction clearly falls under clause (h) and not under clause (j).
Act Referred :KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT : S.21(1)(j), S.21(1)(h)
(A) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986, Section 21(1)(h) and Section 21(1)(j) were invoked in these appeals to determine the rightful basis for eviction after demolition and reconstruction of a building. Section 21(1)(h) grants the landlord the right to evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the landlords own occupation and use, necessarily including the right to demolish and reconstruct, whereas Section 21(1)(j) provides for eviction to enable demolition and reconstruction for letting to tenants, subject to a correlative right of re-entry. The statutory framework imposes distinct obligations, including the landlords duty to enter within the prescribed period under Section 21(1)(h) and the undertaking obligation under Section 21(1)(j), thereby delineating separate spheres of application that must not overlap.
(B) The two sub-clauses are mutually exclusive, qualitative distinctions must be maintained, and the court is not at liberty to prefer one over the other; a claim falling under Section 21(1)(h) must be dismissed if it is mischaracterised as falling under Section 21(1)(j).
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction of tenants under Section 21(1)(h) on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own occupation and occupation after demolition and reconstruction of the building.
Findings of Court:
The Karnataka High Court held that demolition and reconstruction for the landlords own use and occupation falls squarely within Section 21(1)(h) and not Section 21(1)(j), and this view was consistent with prior precedents distinguishing the two provisions.
Issues:
Whether the landlords claim for eviction after demolition and reconstruction was correctly founded under Section 21(1)(h) or Section 21(1)(j), and whether the two provisions are mutually exclusive or open to judicial discretion.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 21(1)(h) and Section 21(1)(j) are mutually exclusive; eviction for bona fide self-occupation, including after demolition and reconstruction, is governed solely by Clause (h), and the court must not read the claim into Clause (j) on discretion.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed.
(A) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986, Section 21(1)(h) and Section 21(1)(j) were invoked in these appeals to determine the rightful basis for eviction after demolition and reconstruction of a building. Section 21(1)(h) grants the landlord the right to evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the landlords own occupation and use, necessarily including the right to demolish and reconstruct, whereas Section 21(1)(j) provides for eviction to enable demolition and reconstruction for letting to tenants, subject to a correlative right of re-entry. The statutory framework imposes distinct obligations, including the landlords duty to enter within the prescribed period under Section 21(1)(h) and the undertaking obligation under Section 21(1)(j), thereby delineating separate spheres of application that must not overlap.
(B) The two sub-clauses are mutually exclusive, qualitative distinctions must be maintained, and the court is not at liberty to prefer one over the other; a claim falling under Section 21(1)(h) must be dismissed if it is mischaracterised as falling under Section 21(1)(j).
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction of tenants under Section 21(1)(h) on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own occupation and occupation after demolition and reconstruction of the building.
Findings of Court:
The Karnataka High Court held that demolition and reconstruction for the landlords own use and occupation falls squarely within Section 21(1)(h) and not Section 21(1)(j), and this view was consistent with prior precedents distinguishing the two provisions.
Issues:
Whether the landlords claim for eviction after demolition and reconstruction was correctly founded under Section 21(1)(h) or Section 21(1)(j), and whether the two provisions are mutually exclusive or open to judicial discretion.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 21(1)(h) and Section 21(1)(j) are mutually exclusive; eviction for bona fide self-occupation, including after demolition and reconstruction, is governed solely by Clause (h), and the court must not read the claim into Clause (j) on discretion.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed.
ORDER
Leave was granted in these appeals limited to the question whether after demolition and reconstruction of the building, the appellants-tenants have a right of re-entry.
2. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1986 in its Section 21(1)(h) confers on the landlord the right to claim eviction of a building bona fide required for his own occupation and Section 21(1)(j) confers on him the right to seek eviction to have the building demolished and reconstructed, but subject to the right of re-entry of the tenant. These two rights are encircled with corresponding obligations inasmuch as under the former provision the landlord is required to enter the premises himself within the statutory period failing which the tenant has a right of re-entry, and in the latter provision, the landlord is required to give an undertaking so as to ensure observance of the terms of re-entry on reconstruction of the building. The present cases are such in which the landlord has sought eviction of the tenants under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act on the ground that he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation but after demolition and reconstruction. The point arising for consideration is whether the landlord s claim was rightly based under Section 21(1)(h) or was it founded under Section 21(1)(j) ?
3. The consistent view of the Karnataka High Court in a series of decisions starting from the case titled as Smt. Rohinibai v. Vishnumurty1, is that the two provisions, i.e., Section 21(1)(h) and Section 21(1)(j) are mutually exclusive and that demolition and reconstruction of a premises by the landlord for his own use and occupation, after getting an order of eviction, clearly falls under Clause (h) of Section 21(1) and not under Clause (j). It has been viewed that the plea of the landlord for bona fide requirement, for his own use and occupation of the premises under Section 21(1)(h), would include the occupation of the premises after making any alteration or a new construction on securing an order of eviction. This extended meaning was given by the Karnataka High Court on the basis of a decision reported in Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta v. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth2, a decision by a three Member Bench of this Court. Identical provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 were examined and it was held that the demolition of the existing building and subsequent erection of a new building were only intermediate steps in order to make the building fit for occupation by the landlord. A nitch was thus carved that till the new building was altered or reconstructed to the satisfaction of the landlord, his obligation to enter the premises within the statutory provided period got extended. It was also held that the provisions relating to demolition and reconstruction saddled with the obligation to provide to the tenant re-entry could not possibly apply to the case where the landlord reasonably and bona fidely requires the premises for his own occupation even if he had to priorly demolish the premises and erect a new building on it. And further, it was viewed that qualitatively the eviction under the provision, such as provided under Section 21(1)(j) of the Act presently in hand, would apply to cases where the landlord does not require the premises for his own occupation, but requires it for erecting a new building to be let out to the tenants. Thus, it is obvious that the Karnataka High Court has maintained the distinction between the two provisions sharply and has never let these provisions overlap with each other.
4. There is a lone voice however made by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in P.K. Upadhyaya v. A. Venkatesh3, to rule that if there be with the Court an occasion to choose between Clauses (h) and (j) in directing eviction of a tenant, it will have to lean in favour of Clause (j) rather than ordering eviction under Clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Act. This has been pressed into service to opt for eviction under Section 21(1)(j). This attempt of the learned Single Judge to demolish the exclusivity of the two sub-clauses (j) & (h) of Section 21(1), well drawn by the Division Bench in Smt. Rohinibai v. Vishnumurthy (supra), is uncalled for. The ground of eviction given in the two provisions being mutually exclusive have flowing therefrom separate individual rights and obligations and they cannot be permitted to overlap so as to confer on the Court the discretion of employing one provision over the other. An application of the landlord, if not falling under Section 21(1)(h), would not its own, merit dismissal. The Court cannot treat it in its discretion as one under Section 21 (1)(j) and order an unwanted eviction. The distinction qualitatively has to be maintained. We therefore decline to take a view to the contrary, even if it be possible, than the one taken by the High Court based as it is one the decision of this Court in Ramnikal Pitambardas Mehta v. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth (supra).
5. As a result, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. In passing however it need be added that Civil Appeal Nos. 12712-12713/96 would have otherwise to be dismissed because sub-letting was another ground of eviction as ordered by the High Court qua which leave has not been granted and that matter had been put to rest. No costs.
Appeals dismissed.
********