Civil Appeal No 2637 of 1977 From the Judgment and order dated 9111976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No 223 of 1976
Rameshwar Nath for the Appellants
YK Jain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is an appeal by special leave arising from the Judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 26th October 1977
The landlord appellant filed the eviction suit against the tenant the predecessor in interest of the respondents
The appellant runs a girls  school being covered by one of its objects
It needed additional accommodation for the said purpose
The building was also in dilapidated condition
The learned trial Judge as well as Appellate Court ordered eviction under section 12 f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
The respondents were in occupation of an old shed as a tenant in the said house
Section 12 f
Of the aforesaid Act gives the landlord the right to evict on the grounds inter alia as follows 516 that the accommodation let for non residential purposes is required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or of any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and 13 that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned Section 12 g deals with the situation where the building has become unsafe or unfit and the landlord wants the premises for carrying out repairs
Section 12 h on the other hand deals with the case where the accommodation is required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and such additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation in the occupation of tenant being vacated
Similar provision in section 31 1g under the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 came up for consideration before this Court in Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta vs Inderadaman Amratlal Sheth 1964 8 SCR p1
This Court held that the case in question fell under clause g which is similar to clause f of the instant case before us of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act section 12 f
This Court further held that the mere fact that the landlord intended to make alterations in the house either on account of his sweet will or on account of absolute necessity in view of the condition of the house would not affect the question of his requiring the house bonafide and reasonably for his occupation when he had proved his need for occupying the house
Nothing further need be proved
In this case the case of the landlord appellant is clearly covered by section 121f
The fact that the building had to be reconstructed for the said purpose is irrelevant
The learned trial judge as well as the learned appellate court read the sanctioned plan and came to the conclusion that the appellant had proved in this case all the need for expansion of the building for girls  education which was one of the objects of the appellant society
The High Court in our opinion misread the sanctioned plan which is Ext
4 which according to the High Court showed in front side of the building abutting the road a series of shops are to be constructed
The High Court was of the view that these shops were meant to be let out to tenants
We are of the opinion that this was a misreading of the plan
These shops were not indicated as shops to be reconstructed but as existing building was to be reconstructed for the purpose of school there was no intention of construc 517 tion of shops and let these out
There was no intention of the landlord appellant to build for the purpose of letting it out
The learned trial judge as well as appellate judge held that the object was to get the building back for expansion of the activities of the appellant society
The High Court therefore in our opinion fell into error in misconstruing the plan and in holding that the landlord s claim for eviction was on the ground of reconstruction
In that view of the matter the High Court went on the examine whether section 12 h of the said Act had been complied with
There was no such necessity in view of the facts as found by the two courts below
In any case in second appeal the High Court should not have interfered with such a question of fact
This was unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case and on the evidence on record and in view of the decision in Ramniklal s case supra
Mr Jain appearing for the tenant sought to urge before us that the plan indicated that the shops were intended to be reconstructed in the new plan Shri Rameshwar Nath Counsel for the appellant assured us that it was the intention of the society to reconstruct the building for the purpose of running the school
In order to avoid any apprehension though we allow the appeal and restore the order of the learned appellate court as well as learned trial court we make it clear that in case if any part of the building is used for shops or let out as shops the first option should be given to the respondents
We further direct that the building must be constructed on the basis of the plan sanctioned and as appended in the records of this case
In view of the fact that the respondents were carrying on business for quite long time they should have some time to vacate
We direct that the respondents should vacate the premises in their occupation by 31st December 1986 and handover the same to the appellant to enable the appellant to proceed with construction
The respondent will file an undertaking on usual terms within a month from today
The order of the High Court is set aside
The orders of the learned Addl
District Judge and the trial court are restored subject to the modifications indicated above
We further direct that after obtaining the possession of the premises from the respondents the appellant should proceed to construct as quickly as possible
In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will pay and bear their own costs
APJ Appeal allowed


Summary:
The landlord appellant running a girls  school
filed an eviction suit against the tenant the predecessor in interest of the respondent on the ground that it needed additional accommodation for the school
The trial Judge as well as the Appellate Court ordered eviction under section 12if of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 holding that the object of the appellant society was to get the building back for expansion of its activities and had proved the same
The High Court however in second appeal examined the sanctioned plan held that the landlord s claim for eviction was on the ground of reconstruction and the series of shops shown in the plan were meant to be let out to tenants and set aside the order of eviction passed by the two courts below
Allowing the appeal to this Court  HELD li
The order of the High Court is set aside
The orders of the Additional District Judge and the Trial Court are restored with the modification that in case any part of the building is used for shop or let out as shop the first option should be given to the respondents and of that the building must be constructed on the basis of the appended sanctioned plan
517G E 1ii
The High Court fell into error in misconstruing the plan Ext
4 and in holding that the landlord s claim for eviction was on the ground of reconstruction
The High Court went on to examine whether section 12h of the Act had been complied with
There was no such necessity 515 in view of the facts as found by the two courts below
In any case in second appeal the High Court should not have interfered with such a question of fact
517B C 2
The case of the landlord appellant is clearly covered by s121f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
The mere fact that the landlord intended to make alterations in the house either on account of his sweet will or on account of absolute necessity in view of the condition of the house would not affect the question of his requiring the house bona fide and reasonably for his occupation when he had proved his need for occupying the house
516E F Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta vs Inderadaman Amratlal Sheth 1964 8 SCR p1 followed