1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 593 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 593 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 593 OF 2007 Sharad Shankarrao Kulkarni .. Applicant Versus Shrihari Mahadev Karkamkar .. Respondent Mr.Rajesh Datar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.G.S.Godbole, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th February,2008. DATE: 8th February,2008. DATE: 8th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the paries. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff and the present applicant is the original defendant. The plaintiff is the landlord and defendant is a tenant in the suit premises consisting of 3 rooms situate on the 2 ground floor of House No.343 bearing Survey No.365-B at South Kasba. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction in the year 1988 for eviction on the ground that he was aged 55 years and was residing outside Solapur due to employment. However, shortly he was due to retire and he wanted to reside at Solapur. The suit house is very old and is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, he wants to demolish that house and reconstruct a new house for his self occupation. The defendant contended that since 1940, his father was a tenant and now the defendant himself is in occupation. He denied that the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide required the suit premises for self occupation after demolishing the same. After hearing the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction accepting the contention of the plaintiff. The defendant challenged that judgment and order in Civil Appeal No.270 of 2004. The Appeal was also dismissed. Against the concurrent finding of the two Courts below, the defendant has preferred the present Revision Application. 3. It appears that the house is about 125 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. I do not find anything on record on the basis of which the concurrent findings of the two Courts below could be termed as illegal, patently erroneous or perverse. 3 4. The learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant vehemently contended that when the landlord wants the premises to demolish the same and to get reconstruction, the case is covered under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter for short referred to as "Bombay Rent Act") and even if he needs the same reasonably and bonafide for his self occupation, still limits provided under Sec. 13(1)(hh) read with Sec. 13(3A) will be applicable and he will have to make provision for allotment of the premises to the tenant in the newly constructed building. He contends that this issue was not considered by the trial Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff contends that when the landlord has proved that he requires the premises reasonably and bonafide for self occupation and if he uses the same without demolition of the old structure and without construction of a new house, the case will be covered by Section. 13(1)(g) and not under Sec. 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore the restrictions provided under Sec. 13(3A) will not be applicable. He is fully supported by the Supreme Court Judgement in Ramniklal Ramniklal Ramniklal Pitamardas Mehta vs. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth AIR 1964 Pitamardas Mehta vs. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth AIR 1964 Pitamardas Mehta vs. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth AIR 1964 4 SC 1676. SC 1676. SC 1676. In almost similar circumstances, after taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act, Their Lordships observed as follows :- "13...The provisions of Section 13 are for the advantage of the landlord and the various grounds for ejectment mentioned in that section are such which reasonably justify the ejectment of the tenant in the exercise of the landlord’s general right to eject his tenant. There is therefore no reason why restrictions not mentioned in the grounds be read into them. We do not therefore agree with the contention that clause (g) will apply only when the landlord bonafide needs to occupy the premises without making any alteration in them i.e. to occupy the identical building which the tenant occupies. There is no justification to give such a narrow construction either to the word "premises" or to the word "occupies" which have been construed by this Court in Krishanlal Ishwarlal Desai v. Bai Vijkor referred to later." "15. We are therefore of opinion that once the 5 landlord establishes that he bona fide requires the premises for his occupation, he is entitled to recover possession of it from the tenant in view of the provisions of sub-clause (g) of Section 13(1) irrespective of the fact whether he would occupy the premises without making any alteration to them or after making the necessary alterations." "16. The provisions of clause (hh) cannot possibly apply to the case where a landlord reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation even if he had to demolish the premises and to erect a new building on them. The provisions of clause (hh) apply to cases where the landlord does not require the premises for his own occupation but requires them for erecting a new building which is to be let out to tenants. This is clear from the provisions of sub-section (3-A) which provide that a landlord has to give certain undertaking before a decree for eviction can be passed on the ground specified in clause (hh)..." As the law on the subject is clearly laid down by the 6 Supreme Court, it is not necessary for me to enter into the question of interpretation of these provisions. Suffice it to state that the above observations of the Supreme Court are fully applicable and the present case is squarely covered by the same. 6. In the result, I find no substance in the Revision Application. The Revision Application stands dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant seeks stay to the execution of the decree for 8 weeks. Stay is already in operation. Subject to the applicant-defendant filing undertaking before this Court within 2 weeks that he would vacate the premises within 8 weeks without any objection or obstruction, the execution of the decree shall remain stayed for a period of 8 weeks from this date. In case of failure to file such undertaking, the decree may be executed any time. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)