TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (12) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tored by the appellant, 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. He 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 "renovation" would mean making a thing new or res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 were made "like new", it would be included in the meaning of the term "renovation". If the original building were to be kept standing and portions of it were to be replaced, it would amount to making repairs to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 requires the building for the purposes of repairs or renovation. If the Legislature wanted to restrict the meaning of the term "renovation" only to those cases where the building has become dilapidated, it would have retained the word "dilapidated" in this sub-clauses. In our opinion, in view of the reasons stated above, this contention of Mr. Nanava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here 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 renovation. Therefore, the Legislature has differentiated between a building which is repaired and a building which is renovated. It is true that "renovation" may be partaking in the nature of repairs, in so far as renewals are included in the term "repairs." By enacting that a tenant will have a right of re-entry after repairs are completed the Legislature included a right of the tenant for re-entry even where renovation in the nature of repairs is made. Bat Section 16 of the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld 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 16 of the Saurashtra Rent Act and came to the conclusion that such tenants had no right of re-entry in the renovated building. No question of construing the term "renovation" arose in that case. 17. Lastly Mr. Shah referred to a decision by my learned brother Divan, J. sitting singly when he decided Second Appeal No. 19 of 1962 on 18th September 1963. The question that arose in that second appeal was whether the requirement of the premises being in a dilapidated condition, was necessary before the landlord can ask for possession of the premises on the ground of renovation. After n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 refer to the state of the landlord's mind. It involves something more than a mere wish and at least an element of need to some extent, although it may not be an absolute need or absolute requirement. Same view is expressed on this point by the Punjab High Court in Labhu Ram v. Ram Prakash , when it was considering the provisions of Section 13(3)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal , the Supreme had an occasion to construe the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VIII of 2006 BK). Section 13(1) provided a bar in ejectm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 B.D. Pudumji v Sir Dinshaw Manekji Petit 22 B.L.R. page 880, the Bombay High Court was considering the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act, 1918. That section provided a bar to the recovery of possession from the tenant. There was a proviso to that Section 9(1), which ran as follows: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply--. where the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the erection of the building. Except for the use of the words "erection of the building" in place of the word "renovation", the provision in this proviso is similar to the provision made in S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding 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 build a new building on the place. In our opinion, the plaintiff-landlord has proved that he bona fide requires the premises for renovation. 20 It has been held in Carrera M. and C. Co. v. Charuchandra that a bona fide requirement of the present description is prima fide reasonable, unless it is shown that the fulfilment of the requirement is contrary to any law or any rule having the force of law. In Bhutan Singh v. Ganendra Kumar , the Calcutta High Court was considering the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. In that case Section 11(1) of the Act provided for a bar to recovery of possession by a landlord ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 local inspection notes, put on record in Suit No. 360 of 1958, may also be treated as evidence in the other three suits. This would show that the parties agreed to treat the inspection notes as evidence in the case in Suit No. 360 of 1958 and by Exh. 116 they requested the Court to treat them as evidence in the other three suits also. Further in Suit No. 360 of 1958 the evidence of the parties was over and the suit was fixed for arguments when the defendant applied that the bearing of the arguments might be postponed until all evidence was recorded in the other three suits and thereafter the arguments might be heard at one time in all the suit....