RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC v. KALYANMAL

Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellants contended b fore us that alternative accommodation is available and that it is not poossible to accept the finding of the courts below that it is not suitable. After going through the judgment of the first Appellate Court which has dealt with this question in depth we agree with the courts balow that the alternative accommodation alleged to be available to the landlord is really a farm house where the farm servants of the landlord are accommodated and that it is not suitable for the purpose for which the landlord requires accommodation. landlord the part of the it is obligatory on Mr. Sen submitted that the eviction ordered is under section 12 (I) (h) of the Act and that section 18 of the Act is attracted to provide accommodation of equal extent to the tena!lts in the new building to be constructed by him. The first Appellate Court has observed in its judgment that the order of eviction is sought on the main ground of the bonafide requirement of the landlord. Therefore there is no case for the application of section 18 to the facts of the present case. Though the courts below have passed the order of eviction under section 12 (l·) (f) and (h) we are of the opinion that the order of eviction is based really and substantially only under section 12 (!) (f) of the Act. The fact that section 12(1) (h) is also mentioned in the orders of the courts below does not make the order of eviction purely one under that section, for the main ground of requirement of the landlord is bonafide personal requirement for locating his proposed factory for the manufacture of gold and silver ornaments. A case more or less similar on facts had come up before this Court in Racnnilal P. Mehta v. !ndradaman Amritlal Sheth(1l which arose from proceedings taken under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House, Rates Control Act (57 of 1947). There the eviction was sought under section 13(1) (g) and 13 (I) (hh) of that Act. (1) AIR 1964 SC 1676 A B c D E F G H ~· 948 SUPRBM~ COURT REPORTS (1985) 1 S.C.lt Section 13(1) (g) of that Act corresponds to section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act and Section 13(1) (hh) of that Act corresponds to section 12 (I) (g) namely that the building is required for effecting either repairs or alterations. This Court has observed in that case that once the landlord establishes the premises for his occupation, he is that he bonafide requires entitled to recover possession of it from the tenant under provisions of sub-clause (g) of section (13) (I) irrespective of the fact whether he would occupy the premises without making any altera tions or after making the necessary alterations. Though the facts of that case are slightly different in that the requirement was for occupation after making some alterations where as in the present case the requirement is for locating the landlord's factory after demolishing and re-constructing the building, principle deducible from that decision would apply to the facts of even these case. We agree with Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned counsel for the respondent landlord that the order of eviction is based mainly under section 12(1) (f) of the Act and that from the mere fact that the order of section 12(1)(h) also eviction only one under section I2(l)(h) of the Act and section 18 of the Act will not be attracted. This fact was not raised in the courts. below, perhaps due to proper undertaking of this position. For these reasons the appeals fail and are dismissed but under the circumstances of the case without costs. is added would not make A B c D E H.S.K. Appeal dismissed.