# \IAHARAJ JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH Mmch ~O v. BADRI PHASAD SETH

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 952
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIC'rrox : Ci vii A pp ea I No. 340 of 1959
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, \I. HwaYATlJI.LAII, C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/iaharaj-jagat-bahadur-singh-mmch-o-v-badri-phasad-seth-2521
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

llr.nt Control-Requiren11.nt of 1JO.SStss[o11 hy lan'l-lord for
currying out repairs-Jl'hethet repairs can
lu~ ejjectecl u·ithu11f
evicting tenant-Pou:l'rs of the Hiyh Court
i11rccision-f.:a~t
l'u11jab Urban Rent l!estriclion Act, 1.94.9 (Hast l'unj. J of l!iJ9),
SS. JJ(J)(a), J;j(fi).
Appellant landlord applied to the Rent Controller for
eviction of the Respondent tenant on l.12.56 under s. 13(3)
of the Punjab Crban Rent Ilestriction 1\ct for rcn1edying
certain defects in the based building. The Municipal Committee on 11.4.57 issued an an1cndcd notice requiring only that
the cracked pillar be reinforced so as to rnake it a solid blo'ck.
Respondent carried out the repairs.
On June 8, 195i, the
Executive Engineer inspected again in compliance 'vith the
order of the Rent Controller and \\·as satisf1ed that the pillar
had been repaired satisfactorily. The Rent Co11trolltr held
that the case fell withi11 s. 13(3j(a) of the Act at:d ordered
eviction of the Respondent.
On appeal the District Jud);e
taking note of the state of repairs allo\\·ccl the appeal.
111
revision under s. 15(5) of the Act the High Court .Judge held
that the po,,·crs of the lligh Court in revision \Vere sin1ilar to
those under s. 115 of the Civil Proccd111e Code and that there
\\·as no question of jurisdiction invo]vcd in 1hc case.
J le,
· ho,vevcr, affirmed the decision after considering the evidence.
Held, that the powers of the High Court under s. 15(5)
of the Act 'vcre manifestly ,vider than thOse under s. 115 of
the Civil Procedure Co<lc an<l 'verc uot confined to questions
of jurisdiction. That under s. 13(3)(a) the requirement of
vacant possession by the landlord could only he for the
purpose of carrying out such fundamental and extensive
repairs as could not he carried out v.:ithout evicting the tcna11t
and not for ininor repairs and that it was open to the.District
Judge to consider the subsequent events upto the· time \\'hen
eviction v:as ordered by the Controller in vi cw ef the .schcn1e
and purpose of the legislation.
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIC'rrox : Ci vii A pp ea I
No. 340 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from
the judgment
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
953
and order dated May 21, 1958, of the Punjab High
Court iu Rgvision Application No. 27 of 1958.
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N.
Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the
appellant.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of
lndia, and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
1962. March 20. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS, J.-This is an appeal
by
speci1tl
leave from the judgment and order of a learned
single Judge of the . .l:'unjab High Court dated }fay
:H, 1958, in Civil ttevision application No. 27 of 1958
of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge
dismissed an application in revision ma.de by the
appellant herein in the following circumstances.
The appellant, ,1Jaharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh
is the owner of the premises known as Ranzor Hall
in Simla. The respondent, Badri Pras'.l<l Seth,
is
in
occupation
of the
premises
as a
tenant and is running a
cinema therein which
is
known
as
Hevoli
theatre
or
Revoli
cinema. 'l'he correspondence between the parties
shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive
Engineer, SimhL Provincial Division, inspected the
cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority,
namely, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six
defects, one of which was, to use the words of the
Executive Engineer, "the right hand pillar of the
screen has cracked and has gone out of plumb."
The existence of these defects was communicated
to the respondent and also to the Muncipal Committee, Simla. The respondent in his turn communicated. the existence of these defects to the appellant
by a letter dated April 17, 1956. In that letter the
respondent suggested· to the appellant that. the defect in the pillar should be removed before the beginning of June, 1956, when the rains were likely to
1962
M(Jharaj Jagat
Bahadur Singh
v.
Badri Prasad S

## Text

952 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] &UPP.
1962
:\IAHARAJ JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH
Mmch ~O.
v.
BADRI PHASAD SETH
(S. K. DAS, :\I. HwaYATlJI.LAII and ,J, C. SHAH, ,JJ.)
llr.nt Control-Requiren11.nt of 1JO.SStss[o11 hy lan'l-lord for
currying out repairs-Jl'hethet repairs can
lu~ ejjectecl u·ithu11f
evicting tenant-Pou:l'rs of the Hiyh Court
i11rccision-f.:a~t
l'u11jab Urban Rent l!estriclion Act, 1.94.9 (Hast l'unj. J of l!iJ9),
SS. JJ(J)(a), J;j(fi).
Appellant landlord applied to the Rent Controller for
eviction of the Respondent tenant on l.12.56 under s. 13(3)
of the Punjab Crban Rent Ilestriction 1\ct for rcn1edying
certain defects in the based building. The Municipal Committee on 11.4.57 issued an an1cndcd notice requiring only that
the cracked pillar be reinforced so as to rnake it a solid blo'ck.
Respondent carried out the repairs.
On June 8, 195i, the
Executive Engineer inspected again in compliance 'vith the
order of the Rent Controller and \\·as satisf1ed that the pillar
had been repaired satisfactorily. The Rent Co11trolltr held
that the case fell withi11 s. 13(3j(a) of the Act at:d ordered
eviction of the Respondent.
On appeal the District Jud);e
taking note of the state of repairs allo\\·ccl the appeal.
111
revision under s. 15(5) of the Act the High Court .Judge held
that the po,,·crs of the lligh Court in revision \Vere sin1ilar to
those under s. 115 of the Civil Proccd111e Code and that there
\\·as no question of jurisdiction invo]vcd in 1hc case.
J le,
· ho,vevcr, affirmed the decision after considering the evidence.
Held, that the powers of the High Court under s. 15(5)
of the Act 'vcre manifestly ,vider than thOse under s. 115 of
the Civil Procedure Co<lc an<l 'verc uot confined to questions
of jurisdiction. That under s. 13(3)(a) the requirement of
vacant possession by the landlord could only he for the
purpose of carrying out such fundamental and extensive
repairs as could not he carried out v.:ithout evicting the tcna11t
and not for ininor repairs and that it was open to the.District
Judge to consider the subsequent events upto the· time \\'hen
eviction v:as ordered by the Controller in vi cw ef the .schcn1e
and purpose of the legislation.
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIC'rrox : Ci vii A pp ea I
No. 340 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from
the judgment
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
953
and order dated May 21, 1958, of the Punjab High
Court iu Rgvision Application No. 27 of 1958.
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N.
Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the
appellant.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of
lndia, and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
1962. March 20. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS, J.-This is an appeal
by
speci1tl
leave from the judgment and order of a learned
single Judge of the . .l:'unjab High Court dated }fay
:H, 1958, in Civil ttevision application No. 27 of 1958
of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge
dismissed an application in revision ma.de by the
appellant herein in the following circumstances.
The appellant, ,1Jaharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh
is the owner of the premises known as Ranzor Hall
in Simla. The respondent, Badri Pras'.l<l Seth,
is
in
occupation
of the
premises
as a
tenant and is running a
cinema therein which
is
known
as
Hevoli
theatre
or
Revoli
cinema. 'l'he correspondence between the parties
shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive
Engineer, SimhL Provincial Division, inspected the
cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority,
namely, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six
defects, one of which was, to use the words of the
Executive Engineer, "the right hand pillar of the
screen has cracked and has gone out of plumb."
The existence of these defects was communicated
to the respondent and also to the Muncipal Committee, Simla. The respondent in his turn communicated. the existence of these defects to the appellant
by a letter dated April 17, 1956. In that letter the
respondent suggested· to the appellant that. the defect in the pillar should be removed before the beginning of June, 1956, when the rains were likely to
1962
M(Jharaj Jagat
Bahadur Singh
v.
Badri Prasad Seth
DasJ.
J:Jfj2
.\tahar<Jj Ja&at
Bahadur Si,igh
v.
Bad1i Prasad Seth
nas J.
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962]
SUPP.
commence. The respondent removed the other
tfofects whil'h wero of a minor nature; but £lcttin~ no
reply from the appellant, he again wrote to him
on September l i, 1956, and asked him to take early
steps to repair the pillar to a void any mishap. The
n·spo11dent also intimated to the appellant tha.t tho
cost of repairs to the pillar was likely to be in the
11cighbourhood of Rs. 5000/-. The appellant took no
actiun in tho matter for some time. On Septum ber
2'!, Hl56 the East Punjab Crban Rent Restri<:tiou
Act, 19-!9 (East Punjab Act Xo. Ill of l!J4!J) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended aud
a elauso was inserted ins. 13(3)(a) thereof which
entitled the landlord to apply to the Rent Controller
for an order directiug the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of any building if he
required it to carry out any building work at tho
instance of the Government or local authority or
any Improvement Trust under some improvement
or development scheme or if the building had become
unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On April
!I, 1956, the appellant wrote to the !:'resident, Simla
:IIunicipa.l Committee, a.sking him to get the pillar
in the Rauzor Hall inspected by the Executive
Engineer in order to have his oprniou whether tho
pillar was really iu a
dangerous condition and
required any action on the part of the )luniuipal
Committee under s. llf, of the Punj1ib ~Iunieipal
Act, l!Jll (Punjab Act III of 1911).
On Oetobtl!' :JO, 1956, the Secretary, i\[unicipal
Committee, Simla, wrote to the respondent about tho
defect in respect· of the right hand pill1ir of the
screen and required the respondent by means of a
notice to do the repairs within fifteen days of the
receipt of tho notice. The Secretary issued tho
notice perponing to act under ss. 113 and .114 of
the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 I. It appears that.
the :IIunicipal Committee had the pillar inspected
again in November, 1956, by the -Executive Engineer,
•
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
955
Simla Central Division. This time the Ex:ecntive Engineer suggested that the two end walls
(pillars) snpporting the beams for the screen were
cracked aml therefore must be replaced by thicker
walls. The Municipal Committee considered this
"report and" came to the conclusion that as a precautionary measure what was necessary was to fill the
doorway in the pillar with masonry so that the
whole might become a solid block. On April 11,
1957, the Municipal Committee wrote to the appellant asking the latter to fill the doorway with
masonry so that tbe whole pillar might become a
solid block. This was in modification of the earlier
notice wlrich had suggested more extensive repairs
to the pillar. But before April 11, 1957, when the
new notice from the Municipal Committee was received, the appellant had already made an application
on December 1,1956, under s. 13 of the Act praying
for an order from the Controller directing the re~
pondent to put the appellant in possession of the
property on the ground that the appellant required
the l:iuilding for replacing the end walls supporting
the beams of the screen by thicker walls. This application was contested by the respondent mainly on
the ground that the appellant's claim was not bona
fide and that the appellant did not really require
the building to be vacated for the purpose of making the repairs to the pillar in question.
The Rent Controller came to the conclusion
that the case was fully covered by cl. (iii) of s.13
(3)(a) of the Act inasmuch as on the evidence on
the record it was established that the appellant
required the building: to carry out the necessary
building work which the Municipal Committee,
Simla, had directed to be done. There was an
appeal from the order of the Rent Controller to the
Distriet Judge who was the relevant appellate
authority under s.15 of the Act. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the noticeA
under ss. 113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal
1962
t! aharoj J agat
Bahadur Singh
v.
Badri Prasad Seth
Das J.
19G2
MaJ.arai .lotat
/Jahad11r Sm.t:h
.
v.
B. d1i P1a;(ld Scih
S56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Act., I!ll I, had been manipulated by the landlord
after the amendment made in s. t:l of the Act on
Scptrmbcr 24, 19:i6, and that the appellai1t did
not bon11 fide require the building for carrying out
th~ repairs iil queRtion. The lcarnrd District. ,Judge
pomterl out that. on April 1 I, l B:ii the i\lunicipal
Committee had asked the landlord to fill the dou1 -
way with masonry so that the whole mi!!ht become
a solid block and though the )funicipal Comn:ittee
had modified its earlier requirement of thicker walls
by means of a notice after the filing of the appli0ation by the appellant, it was open to the Court to
take into consideration facts which had come into
cxistancc after the filing of the application. He
also pointed out that the evidence oft.he Executive
EnginAPI', Central P.W.D., showed that he inspecti>d
the building on .Tune 8, I 957, in tho compliance
with the directions of the Court and was satisfied
that the pillar had been satisfactorily repaired.
In
this view of the matter the learned District .Judge
allowed the appeal and dismissed the application.
Th~n, there was an application in revision ·
under s. lii(•'i) of the Act to the High Court.
This
application was dealt with by K. L. Gosain, .J. who
wrongly prn?Ceded on the footing t~at the appli.c~
tion in rev1s10n was one under s. ii:>, Code of C1v1l
Procedure. Though the learned Judge said that he
had "one through the evidence and agreed with the
findi~as arrived at by thn District Judge, he came
to tho
0 conclusion that as no question of jurisdiction
was involved within the meaning of s.115, Cod!l of
Civil Procedure, he saw no reasons to interfere and
dismissed thn application in revision.
The present
appeal is direct.id against this order of the learned
smgle Judge.
Tho learned Attorney .General who appeared
on behalf of the appellant has rightly pointed out
that the learned J udgo of tho High Court was in
•
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
957
error in disposing of the case as though the application in revision made to the High Court was an
application under s. 115, Code of Civil Procedure.
The application was really an application under
s. 15(5) of the Act which is in these terms :
'
"15. (5) The High Court may, at any
time, on the application of any aggrieved
party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed
or proceedings taken under this Act for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality
or propriety of such order or proceedings and
may pass such order in relation thereto as it
may deem fit."
It is manifest that the scope of sub·s. ( 5) of s. 15 of
the Act is not the same as the scope of s. 115, Code
of Ci•il Procedure. The learned Attornev General
has submitted. rightly in our opinion, that.the scope
of sub-s. (5) of s. 15 of the Act is wider and is not
confined to questions of jurisdiction only.
But even if the learned Jud!!;e of the High
Coart was in error in treating the application as
one under s. 115, Code of Civil Procedure, the fact
still remains that he affirmed the findings of the
learned District Judge and one of these findings
was that the landlord did not require the building
to carry out the repair work which was su?gested
by the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee liad suggested a very simple work of repair,
namely, filling up of the doorway in the pillar so
that the pillar might· be one solid wall to support
the screen. It has not been seriously disputed before
us that such repairs could be easily carried out without the necessity of asking the respondent to vacate
the building. As a matter of fact the learned Dis·
trict Judge has pointed out that the Executive
Enginear, Central P.W.D. had, subsequent to the
application, exfJ,mined the pillar and found thn,t
J96!t
,1-fah~,rof Jagat
8'Jlladur Singh
..
Bodri Prasad Seth
DasJ.
,\faharaj J •got
B!lhJdur Singh
..
Bad1i Prasad Sttli
Das J.
Q58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
the repair work had already been done by the
respondent.
The leiirned Attorney General has contenrled
that the lciirned District Judg<• was in error in holding that the appelliint had manipulat.ed the notices
..nclcr as. 11 :i am! 114 of the Punjab :lfonicipal Ant.
We think it unnece88ary to go into that qn<'stion
because the relevant provision in s. J::l(3)(a) of tho
Act makes it quite clear that the landlord is m1tit.-
led to an order from the Controller directing the
terant to put thP landlord in pos8ession rJf th<·
building only when the landlord requires it.to carry
out any building work etc.
Tho relevant provision
rpads as follows :
"13. (1) A tenant in posFession of a building or rented fan<l shat! not be t'Victed
t he1 efrom x x x
l'Xccpt
in
acco, dun' e
with the prov is ions of' this section, x x x.
(2)
x x x.
(:l) (a)
A landlord may apply to tlw Controller for an order directing the t<·nant to put
the landlord in posse~o;ion-
(i) x x x
(ii)
x
x
x
(iii)
in the ca8e of any building or renied
land if he requires it to carry out.
any buildi11g work at t.he in•t1mcc of
the Government or local authority or
any Jmpro\'(·mcnt 'I'ru8t under Rome
im)Jro\·ement or clcvelopm.,nt echem"
or if it bas hecome unsafe or 1111fit
for human babitat:on.
x x x. "
W<.' emphasis£> the word "1cquires" in the provision.
·Having regard to the seh~me and purpose of tbp.
legislation it is abundantly clear that cl. (iii) of
•
'
•
' '
a s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
959
s.l3(3)(a) of the Act is attr.icted only when the
building work is such that the lJ.ndlord requires
that the building be vacated by the tenant in order
to carry out the work ; in other words, the repairs
needed are so extensive and fundamental in character that they cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possesRion. Then only it can be said that
the landlord requires the building to carry out the
building work. We think that it is absurd to suggest that any such small work as white-washi~g,
or filling up the gap in the doorway as in the present case, comes within cl. (iii) of s. 13(3)(a) of the
Act .
The learned Attorney General has argued that
the learned District Judge wrongly took into consiqeration facts which had come into existance after
the filing of the application under s.13 of the Act.
Here again we think that having regard to the
scheme and purpose of the legislation it was open
to the learned District Judge to take into consideration such facts as existed at the time when the
order for vacation was to come into offer;t. Section
13 \ 3l(b) says that the Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make
an C•rder directing the tenant to put the landlord
in possession of the building on such date. as may
be specified by the Controller. In the present case
the Controller made the order in July, 1957, and
directed the building to be vacated by Septem her
25, 1957. But long before that date, namely, on
June
8, 1957, the Executive Engineer, Central
P.W.D., had inspected the building and found that
the pillar had been repaired satisfactorily. The
Controller did not accept the testimony of the Executive Engineer and the learned District Judge
pointed out that the testimony of the Executive
Engineer had been rejected by the Controller on
very insufficient grounds. Tt was open to the learned
District Judge to take into consideration the testimony of the Executive Engineer and having regard
196!
Mahoraj Jagat
Baharlur Singh
v.
Badri Prasad Seth
DasJ.
1962
Mah1raj Joeat
Bahadur Smgti
v.
Badri Pratad Stth
Dos J.
A1arch :?0,
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SllPl'.
to that testimony, the lcarne<l District Judge
rightly came to the conclusion that cl. (iii) of s.1.1(:!)
(a) of the Act was not attracted to the Catie.
For these rea.sons we have com!i to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal whi~h
i~ accordingly dismissed with costs.
AppP,al dismissed.
K. M. S. REDDY, CO:\fi\HSST01\ER OF INCOME.
TAX, KERALA (CODIBATORE), EHNAKl1LA.Jl
r.
THE WEST COAST CHEMICALS AND JN"DUSTIUES LTD. (I!\ LIQCIDATION"), ALLEPPX
(S. JC DAS, :VT. HrnAYATULLAH and .J.C. SHAH, .TJ.)
lncomr Tax-lri11dirig up of bu.sine . .;s-Rra[isation of
r1ssf:fs-~)'afe rlurin(f loinding up, if an l'lt;,t of lradi'tl'}-l'rofits
an'si1;q out of sale--Lial1ili1y to lox.
The respondent cornpany \\·as
incorportrd
in
1937
primarily with the object of acqnirini:r and \\·orking- a match
factorv.
Under the 1nr.morandun1 of as-;oc:iation the company
\\·as a·tso empo\\'Cred, inter a/ia, to rnanufacture and deal in
chemicals. The business of rnanufa.cturing 1natches \\':lS carri<~rl
on hy the company till 1941.
Thercaf1cr thr. prr.•fits hccame
less and less due to y,:ar conditions.
On
~1a.y 9, 19-lJ, the
company rntere:d into an agreement with a third party for th~
sale of the land-.. buildings. plant ancl machinery of it~ match
factory for Rs . .i,75,000.
It ,vas agreed that this price \\'oulci
not include manufacturrd roods, cttn1irab ancl
CJtb<r 1a,,·
1naterials or any other asset not shown in the agrc~ment of
~le. J.ater, a fresh a~TTce1n~nt ,..,as entered into on .J\11g11.-.t 9,
19-13, under which the sale includeci chernical~ and paper for
rnanufacture \vhich had not hecn sold in the first instance an<l
the price \\'as Rs. 7,'.~5.000.
In a report to thr. sharcholdc:rs
dated ..-\ugust l, 1944, the Direc.tof!C stated t!1at the price
obtained had shown a capita) appreciation of about six tinH:>s
the cost price and that the sale of chemicals harl resulle<l in
substantial profit.
In proceedings for assessing income which
had escaped a'isessment
the income·tax authorities, relying
upon the memorandum of association \\"hic:h allowed the