Case: Panchamal Narayan Shenoy Vs. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy

2. The respondent landlord filed an application dated July 6, 1962 under Sec. 21 (l) (j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (Mysore Act XXII of 1961) (hereinafter called the Act) before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants (the appellants herein) on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by him for the immediate purpose of demolishing and erecting of a new building. According to the respondent the premises were old and were not suitable for continued occupation. The respondent had also stated in his application that he had obtained the necessary licence for erecting a new building after demolition of the existing building and that he had made all preparations for demolition and erection of new buildings on the site. The appellant-tenant contested the claim of the landlord on several grounds. He pleaded that the premises were not old and that it was quite suitable for occupation and it does not require any reconstruction or re-modelling. The allegations that the building was old and required to be re-constructed were not bona fide and had been made by the landlord only as a pretext for evicting, the tenant. The tenant further pleaded that the requirement of the landlord was neither reasonable nor bona fide. In any event, the tenant claimed that he should be entitled to be paid the value of the improvements that had been effected by him.3. The Rent Controller, by his order dated January 22, 1964 accepted the claim of the respondent and ordered eviction of the appellant granting the tenant one months time for delivering vacant possession. Though the Consulting Engineer who gave evidence as P. W. 2 on behalf of the respondent had stated that the building was over 60 years old but nevertheless it could go on for about 15 years more, the Rent Controller actually found that the building was more than 50 years old and that it was an old-fashioned one. He further found that when the landlord desired to pull it down and put up a modern building thereon, it could not, under the circumstances, be said that his claim was not bona fide or reasonable and that the intention of the landlord in pulling down the building and erecting a new one to get a better return was certainly understandable. The Rent Controller further found that the landlord had proved that he had sufficient means to construct the building and that he had also obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipality concerned for reconstruction of the building. In view of all these circumstances, the Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord was quite reasonable and bona fide. Regarding the claim of the tenant for payment of improvements before eviction is ordered, the Rent Controller found that such a claim, even if established, could not stand in the way of landlord getting possession of the premises. Ultimately the application filed by the landlord was allowed.4. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller were confirmed by the learned District Judge, by his judgment dated October 19, l964 in A. S. No. 43 of 1964 taken before him by the tenant.5. The revision filed by the appellant before the High Court was rejected by order dated June 8, 1966.

Reasoning: 8. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act, we are satisfied that the interpretation placed upon Section 21 (1) (j) by the High Court is correct.We have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judges observation that the landlord must prove the reasonableness and bona fide nature of his requirement. But, if the learned Judge intended to lay down a proposition of law that under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Madras Act, similar to Section 21 (1) (j) of the Act, a landlord cannot recover possession of the property for the purpose of reconstruction so as to put the property to a more profitable use, we are of the view that the decision of the Madras High Court must be considered to be erroneous. There is absolutely no justification for putting such a narrow interpretation on the clause in question16. Mr. Chagla further urged that before his client is evicted his claim for compensation should have been considered by the Rent Controller. It is enough to say that, as pointed out by the High Court, that claim does not arise for consideration in these proceedings. We may also state that a further contention regarding the validity of the notice to quit issued by the landlord which was taken before the High Court and held against the appellant, has not been canvassed beforeour opinion, it is not necessary that the landlord should go further and establish under this clause that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. That the condition of the property may be such which requires immediate demolition is emphasized in clause (k) of the proviso. When such a specific provision has been made in clause (k), the condition of the building cannot come into the picture nor could it have been dealt with again in Clause (j). So the requirement under Clause (j) is that of the landlord and cannot have any reference to the building.e have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judges observation that the landlord must prove the reasonableness and bona fide nature of his requirement. But, if the learned Judge intended to lay down a proposition of law that under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Madras Act, similar to Section 21 (1) (j) of the Act, a landlord cannot recover possession of the property for the purpose of reconstruction so as to put the property to a more profitable use, we are of the view that the decision of the Madras High Court must be considered to be erroneous. There is absolutely no justification for putting such a narrow interpretation on the clause in question