9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 24 of 1959 on 19-1-1959. The respondent alleged in his plaints that he carried on business in various commodities and he found the premises In which he carried on business insufficient for his needs and he found them inconvenient. He also stated that he wanted to expand his business. His case for possession of the suit shops was based on two grounds; firstly that the building in which the suit shops are located was very old and that he wanted to pull down the building and build it new to suit his convenience; and secondly that he bona fide and reasonably required the suit premises for his personal occupation. These two grounds were based on Section 13(1)(h) and 13(1)(g) of the Saurashtra Act. He also alleged certain other grounds which would entitle him to possession, but his claim on these grounds has been negatived by both the Courts below and we are not, therefore, concerned with those other grounds in the present appeals. 2. The trial Court held In favour of the respondent-plaintiff on both the ground about requirement of the plaintiff for personal occupation and about the requirement for the purpose of renovation. The trial Court, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... says that this proposed act of his is included in the term "renovation" used in Section 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Act. The appellant denies that the proposed act of the plaintiff is included in the term "renovation" as used in the said section. The first point, therefore, that arises for our decision is whether demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building in its place would amount to "renovation" within the meaning of Section 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Act. 8. Now, the term "renovation" is not defined in the Act. We have, therefore, to look to its dictionary meaning and to adopt that meaning Which is justified by the context in which the word "renovation" is used in the clause. In Webster's Dictionary (20th Century, Second Edition), the word "renovate" is explained as follows: to make new or like new, to clean up, replace worn and broken parts in, repair etc.; to restore to good condition. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning is to renew materially, to repair, to restore by replacing lost or damaged parts, to create a new. Therefore, according to this dictionary meaning the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained as meaning "renewals by way of repair and not replacements involving the introduction of new heritable subjects. "In so far as "renewals by way of repair" is concerned, it not doubt is one of the meanings of the term "renovation" as we have seen above. The later part of the meaning in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary merely refers to such replacement as involve introduction of new heritable subjects. There is no attempt on the part of Mr. M.C. Shah to point out how this later part of the meaning is relevant in the present case. The meaning, therefore, of the term "renovation" in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary does not in any way ran counter to the meaning of the term "renovation" which, as stated above, we are disposed to accept. Mr. Shah urged that "renovation" does not include pulling down the existing structure and building a new one on the same land. He urged that the term "renovation" would mean such renovation of the building as can be made keeping existing building standing. He stated that the making of a new building would not be included in the term "renovation", but if a building we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain possession for repairs if he showed that the building was in a dilapidated condition. But after the Act of 1951, the Legislature has thought it fit to grant him a wider right of obtaining possession for renovation. Mr. Nanavati's argument, therefore, is that even for the purposes of renovation the landlord must show that the building is in a dilapidated condition. In our opinion, the contention of Mr. Nanavati is not correct. It is true that when the Bombay Act was adapted and applied to Saurashtra in 1948 it was thought fit that the right to obtain possession on the ground of repairs should be restricted only to those cases where the building was in a dilapidated condition. The Raj Pramukh at that time did not think it fit to apply Section 13(1)(h) as it stood in the Bombay Act of 1947. However, the Legislature when it passed the Saurashtra Act in 1951 substantially changed the provisions by reverting back to the language contained in Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Act and by expressly omitting the requirement that the building should be in a dilapidated state. The only condition which is now required to be fulfilled by the landlord is that he reasonably and bona fide req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hh) refers to cases where a landlord requires the premises for immediate demolition and rebuilding. The argument was that though the provisions of Sub-clause (hh) were before the Saurashtra Legislature when this Act was enacted by it, the Saurashtra Legislature did not incorporate any provision similar to the provision contained in Sub-clause (hh) in 1951; and it should, therefore, be assumed that Saurashtra Legislature did not want to provide for eviction in a case where the landlord wanted to demolish the building and build it a new, even though 'they were not dilapidated. In our opinion, looking to the meaning of the term "renovation" as discussed above, Sub-clause (h) in the Saurashtra Act covers the case of demolition and rebuilding of a building and therefore, the provisions of Sub-clause (hh) in the Bombay Act might not have been thought necessary to be included separately in the Saurashtra Act. 15. We may also note the provisions of Section 16 of the Saurashtra Rent Act. In that section a provision is made for re-entry of the tenant into the premises after the repairs are completed. No provision is made for re-entry of a tenant after the completion of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the said site. The question arose whether such an act by the landlord would be included in the term "renovation" used in Section 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Act. The trial Court held that the term "renovation" would not include demolition and re-construction of a building. The lower appellate Court took a contrary view and held that "renovation" would cover the case of construction of a new building in place of the old. When the matter came before Vyas, J. for decision, the learned Judge noted the facts found about the condition of the building and held that if the building is required to be demolished and new building is required to be erected on the same site it would amount to renovation of the building. A reference was also made before us to another decision of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 11, 12, 20 and 21 of 1958 decided by Vyas, J. on 17-2-1958. In those appeals the question that directly arose for decision was whether the tenants against whom decrees for eviction have been passed to enable the landlord to renovate the building have a right of re-entry into the building after renovation. The learned Judge referred to Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the conclusion that the term "renovation" in Section 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Act would include the demolition of an existing building and re-construction of the building on the same site 18. The next question to be decided in this connection is whether in the instant case the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for being renovated, that is, for being demolished and re-constructed. This can be split up into two portions: firstly whether the requirement of the plaintiff is bona fide and secondly whether such requirement is reasonable. In order to show that the requirement is bona fide, it is not enough to show that the plaintiff has a mere desire or Intention to demolish the building and re-construct it. The provision about reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord also occurs In Section 13(1)(0) of the Bombay Act. That sub-clause relates to a case where the premises are land. As to the meaning of the word "requirement". in this section, this Court held in Ishwarbhai v. Parshottam VIII G.L.R. page 665, on page 676 as follows: "In my view, the word 'require' cannot be equated with 'desire' and it does not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e requires the building for renovation, must prove that his claim is real and honest and this can be judged by the Court after taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances. 19. In order to prove the need to reconstruct, the plaintiff in the instant case relies upon the circumstance that the building is very old. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are that the shops are about 70 to 80 years old; that they are carved out of a godown; that excepting the doors there is no other means for ventilation for air and light; that its height is only 10 to 12 feet and that its room is of corrugated iron sheets which are about 20 years old. It is also found that the level of the godown from which these shops are carved out is lower than the foot-path in front of it. It is found as a matter of fact that the building is not likely to fall down for another 25 to 30 years. It was urged that there is no need for the plaintiff to pull down this building which is yet stable enough to stand for about 25 to 30 years. The argument seems to be that if the premises are not likely to fall down in the near future it cannot be said that there is need to demolish them and re construct. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order that proper improvements might be made. The decision of Kajiji, J. was upheld. It follows from this decision that the need to construct cannot be said to arise only when the building becomes weak and is likely to fall down. If as in the instant case a building is old, ill-ventilated and below the level of the foot-path and the landlord wants to pull it down so as to build a new building in its place, it can be said that he reasonably and bona fide requires the building for that purpose. If the Court is satisfied that the landlord has a real and honest desire to improve his property by pulling down such an old building and to replace it by a new building on the same site, it cannot be said that his requirement is not bona fide. The suit building consists of six shops and two other tenants of two shops have already surrendered the possession of the premises to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has already demolished those portions of the building. He has got the plans and estimates prepared and they have been approved by the Municipal authorities. He has given the contract for supervision to the witness Velji. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-landlord has the means to buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises, there is no evidence to show that the building is illventilated and that the shops are carved out of the godown and that the level of the shop is below that of the foot-path in front of it. Now, these facts are gathered by both the Courts below from the inspection notes which are put on record of the case. It may be stated here that there were in all four suits filed by the landlord in respect of four different tenants, in the property. Suit No. 360 of 1958 out of which Second Appeal No. 644 of 1961 arises was one of them There were other three Suits Nos. 23 of 1959, 24 of 1959 and 366 of 1958 which were consolidated on 8th January 1960. The inspection notes of the learned trial Judge are at Exh. 117 in Suit No. 360 of 1958. The learned trial Judge has noted below the notes that they were prepared in open Court and in the presence of the parties in these suits. The record of inspection notes shows that the premises were visited by the learned trial Judge at the request of the patties and in their and their pleaders' presence. In the other three suits, which were consolidated, the parties gave an application at Exh. 116 in Suit No 366 of 1958 requesting the Court that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
