9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the expression 'personal use' in sub-section (8) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 2. Bona fide requirement of additional accommodation under Section 11(8) of the Act. 3. Comparative hardship to the tenant versus the benefit to the landlord under the first proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of 'Personal Use' in Sub-section (8) of Section 11 of the Kerala Act: The core issue revolves around the interpretation of 'personal use' within the context of Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The appellant argued that 'personal use' should encompass any bona fide requirement for additional accommodation, including starting a new business. The respondent contended that 'personal use' should be confined to the expansion of the existing business only. The court emphasized that words in a statute should be given their natural, ordinary meaning and that 'personal use' is an expression of wide amplitude. It was concluded that 'personal use' should not be restricted to the expansion of the existing business but should include any bona fide requirement for additional accommodation for any business or purpose of the landlord's choice. 2. Bona Fide Requirement of Additional Accommodation: The appellant, a landlord, sought eviction of the respondent, a tenant, from a shop room on the grounds of bona fide requirement for starting a new jewellery and textile business. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both dismissed the eviction petition, finding that the appellant did not genuinely need the additional accommodation and that the respondent would face more hardship if evicted. The High Court upheld these findings. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the landlord's bona fide requirement for additional accommodation under Section 11(8) should not be limited to the expansion of an existing business but could include starting a new business. 3. Comparative Hardship to the Tenant: The court examined the first proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11, which mandates that the Rent Controller must consider whether the hardship caused to the tenant by eviction would outweigh the benefit to the landlord. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the respondent would suffer more hardship than the appellant would benefit. The High Court did not address this aspect due to its interpretation of Section 11(8). The Supreme Court emphasized that even if the landlord's bona fide requirement is established, the relief under Section 11(8) cannot be granted without a finding in favor of the landlord under the first proviso to sub-section (10). Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to evaluate the issue of comparative hardship as required under the first proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the High Court for a new decision in accordance with the law.
|
