A Supreme Court Judgment on tenancy.

S.R. Babu v. T.K. Vasudevan
Appellants: S.R. Babu
Respondants: T.K. Vasudevan
Date: 04/092001
Bench: S.S.M Quadri & S.N Phukan
 
Facts: In the instant case the appellant is the tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of premises, Ward No. 28, Changanacherry. The first respondent filed eviction petition against the appellant in the court of the Rent Controller, Kottayam, on three grounds: (i) bona-fide requirement for personal occupation – under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control), 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (ii) bona-fide requirement for personal occupation after reconstruction – under Section 11(8) of the Act; and (iii) under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act stating that he intends to demolish and reconstruct the portion for his more beneficial use. The appellant denied bona fide requirement of the first respondent and contested the eviction petition on all the three counts.  The learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of the respondent under sub-section (8) of Section 11 as also under clause (iv) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. However, he ordered eviction under sub-section (3) of Section 11 holding that bona fide requirement of the first respondent was proved.  The appellant carried the matter in revision before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional District Judge on re-appreciating the evidence held that the bona fide requirement of the first respondent was not proved and reversed the order of the Appellate Authority, on that ground, by allowing the revision on October 18, 1993. The first respondent challenged the said order before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Therefore now the appeal lies before the Supreme Court.
Contentions: Mr. M.P. Vinod, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that as the first respondent intends to occupy the suit premises not in its present form but after reconstruction, so it cannot be said that he bona fide requires the suit premises. On the other hand Mr. S. Prasad, the learned counsel for the first respondent, contends that as all the courts below except the Additional District Court found the need of the respondent for the suit premises for his personal occupation is bond fide is immaterial whether he utilizes it as it is or repairs or reconstructs the same to suit his requirements.
Issue: Whether the requirement of the suit premises by the appellant for personal use implies its use not only in the existing condition but also on making necessary repairs to or reconstruction of the same.
Conclusion: In our view, once it is held that the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use he is entitled to utilise it to best suit his requirement. The condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant. The first respondent may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs, additions or alterations to suit his requirements. The appellant has no say in such matters.
Decision: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.