1972 (3) TMI 113 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Reinstates Trial Decision with Rs.50,000 Compensation for Tenants; Emphasizes Balancing Hardships.

Kishinchand Murjimal and Ors. Versus Bal Kalavati and Ors.

The HC overturned the Appellate Bench's decree and reinstated the trial court's decision, contingent upon the trustees offering Rs.50,000/- to the tenants ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.2. Comparative hardship to tenants and trustees.3. Requirement of premises for trust purposes.4. Interpretation of 'residential' versus 'non-residential' use under Section 25(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.5. Adequacy of the Appellate Bench's findings on hardship.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 13(2):The court held that Section 13(2) applies to all suits for eviction filed under Section 13(1)(g), including those filed by trustees of a charitable trust. The court emphasized that it is the duty of the court to consider all circumstances relating to the hardship of both the plaintiff and the defendant as required by Section 13(2).2. Comparative Hardship:The trial court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of hardship to both parties. The trustees argued that refusing the decree would frustrate the trust's objectives and cause significant public hardship due to the lack of medical facilities. The tenants claimed greater personal hardship due to the difficulty in finding alternative accommodation. The trial court found that the trustees' offer to purchase alternative premises for the tenants for Rs.50,000/- was reasonable and that the tenants did not make sufficient efforts to find alternative accommodation. The Appellate Bench, however, reversed this finding, focusing on the tenants' inability to find 'suitable' accommodation and the hardship to the tenants' extended family.3. Requirement of Premises for Trust Purposes:The trustees needed the premises to construct a marriage hall, clinic, and hospital as directed by the Bombay City Civil Court. The trial court found this requirement genuine and necessary for fulfilling the trust's objectives. The Appellate Bench also acknowledged the trustees' genuine requirement but focused on the comparative hardship to the tenants.4. Interpretation of 'Residential' vs. 'Non-Residential' Use:The court rejected the argument that the trustees' requirement for constructing a marriage hall and hospital was non-residential. It held that the usage by doctors, nurses, and patients, even if temporary, constituted residential use within the meaning of Section 25(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The court noted that 'residence' has varied meanings and should be interpreted in the context of the Act.5. Adequacy of Appellate Bench's Findings on Hardship:The High Court criticized the Appellate Bench for misinterpreting Section 13(2) by equating 'reasonable accommodation' with 'suitable accommodation.' The High Court emphasized that hardship, not inconvenience or unsuitability, is the criterion under Section 13(2). The Appellate Bench's failure to properly consider the trustees' reasonable offer and the detailed reasons provided by the trial court led to the reversal of the Appellate Bench's decision. The High Court restored the trial court's decree with modifications, including a provision for the trustees to offer Rs.50,000/- to the tenants for alternative accommodation.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the Appellate Bench's decree and restored the trial court's decree, subject to the trustees offering Rs.50,000/- to the tenants for alternative accommodation. The court emphasized the need to balance hardship to both parties and interpreted the statutory provisions in a manner that supports the objectives of public charitable trusts.