VANAND BABU CHAKU Vs. KESHAVLAL DURLABHJI VIRANI HEIRS OF DECD DURLABHJI SHAMJI VIRAM
LAWS(GJH)-1979-12-23
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 14,1979

VANAND BABU CHAKU Appellant
VERSUS
KESHAVLAL DURLABHJI VIRANI(HEIRS OF DECD.DURLABHJI SHAMJI VIRANI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. H. SHETH - (1.) Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovering possession of the suit premises under sec. 13 (1) (hh) of the Bombay Rent Act against the defendant. The learned trial Judge passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for possession. That decree was challenged by the defendant in appeal to the District Court. The appeal was dismissed. The defendant challenges this civil revision application the appellate decree passed by the Court below.
(2.) On behalf of the defendant it has been firstly argued that the Tribunal constituted under sec. 13 (3B) of the Bombay Rent Act could not have granted to the plaintiff certificate under sec. 13 (3A) without giving an opportunity to the defendant of being heard. The Tribunal is constituted under sub-sec. (3B) of sec. 13. Under sub-sec. (3A) it has got the power to grant a certificate to the landlord which the landlord is required to produce at the time of the institution of the suit if he seeks possession of the premises under sec. 13 (1) (hh). Sec. 13(1)(hh) provides follows. "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sec 15 a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (hh) that the premises consist of not more than two floors and are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of the demolisr hing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished". When sec. 13 (1) (hh) is read in light of sec. 13 (3A) it becomes very clear that no landlord has a right to institute an action against his tenant to recover possession of the premises let out to his tenant on the ground that he wants to demolish it and construct on the site of that building a new building unless he produces a certificate from the Tribunal under sec. 13(3A).
(3.) Rules have been made under sec. 13 and sec. 49 of the Bombay Rent Act. They are called Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Tribunal) Rules Have. They were published on 22nd February 1951 in Bombay Government Gazette Part 1 at page 970. Similarly a notification was issued by the Government of Bombay one 25th January 1951 under Sec. 13 (3B) (b) (iv) of the Bombay Rent Act and was published in Bombay Government Gazette Part T. When the notification and the Rules are read together it becomes very clear that before ah Tribunal grants to the landlord a certificate under sec. 13 (3A) it is required to consider three questions. They are as follows: (i) Whether the landlord has present title to the land on which the existing premises stand; (ii) Whether the landlords immediate financial resources amount to not less than 1/3rd of the estimated cost of the construction of a new building to be erected by him; and; (iii) Whether the landlord has obtained the approval of the Municipality and other authorities concerned as may be necessary to the plan for the new building to be erected by him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.