Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)A.N.Sehgal And Ors vs Raje Ram Sheoran And Ors on 5 April, 1991
9. As regards the first point, the legislature in its collective wisdom has very cleverly engrafted the first Proviso to the effect that when the court thinks that reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building, it can pass an order. To some extent this Proviso indicates variation to the object of legislature as contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, The main function of the Proviso is to carve an exception to the main enactment. But it need not be so interpreted as to set at naught the main enactment. The object of the Act is to regulate the letting of buildings and the rent of such buildings and to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenants therefrom, some provisions of the Act fall under the category of beneficial legislation with regard to the tenant (i.e. present defendant appellants) and others with regard to the landlord. The Act is a Beneficial Legislation It must be given a wider interpretation. Broadly speaking, while interpreting such provisions, the court ought to apply social beneficient rule of construction. Even in such matters, if the provision is capable of two constructions, that which fulfils the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed, must be adopted; keeping in view, however, the language employed. (See A.N. Sehgal v. R. R. Sheo Ram and Ors. ; S. Sundaram v. Pattabhiram AIR 1985 S.C. 588 at page 592; Rhodde Urban District Council v. Taff Vale Railway Co. (1909) A.C. 253; and Gopal Chandra Ghosh v. Smt. Renu Bala Majumndar-Judgment (today 1994 (1) S.C. 80). The first Proviso to Section 11 of the Act is quite emphatic and is mandatory in nature. In case the court is of the opinion that by partial eviction of the tenant, the suit can be decreed to the advantage of the landlord and the tenant, the court could order for partial eviction of the tenant, the rent would also be reduced proportionately. The findings of the learned Munsif clearly indicates that by giving four rooms to the plaintiff and reducing the rent to Rs.. 50/- per month, the requirements of both would be met. This is what has been done. It is equitable adjustment of the claim of both sides.
Gopal Chandra Ghosh vs Renu Bala Majumdar on 12 January, 1994
9. As regards the first point, the legislature in its collective wisdom has very cleverly engrafted the first Proviso to the effect that when the court thinks that reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building, it can pass an order. To some extent this Proviso indicates variation to the object of legislature as contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, The main function of the Proviso is to carve an exception to the main enactment. But it need not be so interpreted as to set at naught the main enactment. The object of the Act is to regulate the letting of buildings and the rent of such buildings and to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenants therefrom, some provisions of the Act fall under the category of beneficial legislation with regard to the tenant (i.e. present defendant appellants) and others with regard to the landlord. The Act is a Beneficial Legislation It must be given a wider interpretation. Broadly speaking, while interpreting such provisions, the court ought to apply social beneficient rule of construction. Even in such matters, if the provision is capable of two constructions, that which fulfils the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed, must be adopted; keeping in view, however, the language employed. (See A.N. Sehgal v. R. R. Sheo Ram and Ors. ; S. Sundaram v. Pattabhiram AIR 1985 S.C. 588 at page 592; Rhodde Urban District Council v. Taff Vale Railway Co. (1909) A.C. 253; and Gopal Chandra Ghosh v. Smt. Renu Bala Majumndar-Judgment (today 1994 (1) S.C. 80). The first Proviso to Section 11 of the Act is quite emphatic and is mandatory in nature. In case the court is of the opinion that by partial eviction of the tenant, the suit can be decreed to the advantage of the landlord and the tenant, the court could order for partial eviction of the tenant, the rent would also be reduced proportionately. The findings of the learned Munsif clearly indicates that by giving four rooms to the plaintiff and reducing the rent to Rs.. 50/- per month, the requirements of both would be met. This is what has been done. It is equitable adjustment of the claim of both sides.
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982
1