{"id":167183,"date":"2000-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000"},"modified":"2017-12-17T10:18:13","modified_gmt":"2017-12-17T04:48:13","slug":"gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000","title":{"rendered":"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.V.Patil, R.P.Sethi, G.B.Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGANTUSA H.  BADDI (DEAD) BY LRS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMEERABAI G.  PAI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/04\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.V.Patil, R.P.Sethi, G.B.Pattanaik\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  appeal is directed against the revisional  Order<br \/>\nof  a  learned\tSingle\tJudge\tof  Karnataka  High   Court,<br \/>\ndismissing  the Revision Petition and affirming the order of<br \/>\neviction  passed  by  the District Judge in  his  Revisional<br \/>\nJurisdiction  under the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control<br \/>\nAct.   The legal representatives of the deceased tenant\t are<br \/>\nthe  appellants.   The\tlandlord filed\tan  application\t for<br \/>\neviction  under\t Section 21(1) (a), (h) and (p) of the\tAct,<br \/>\nalleging  that\tthe  tenant  has not paid  or  tendered\t the<br \/>\narrears\t of  the rent legally recoverable from him and\tthat<br \/>\nthe  premises  are reasonably and bona fide required by\t the<br \/>\nlandlord for occupation of himself as well as on the further<br \/>\nassertion  that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of<br \/>\nan  alternative suitable building.  The Munsif at  Yellapur,<br \/>\non  consideration  of the entire materials before  him\theld<br \/>\nagainst\t the  landlord\ton  all counts,\t and  dismissed\t the<br \/>\napplication  for eviction by his order dated 4.10.1991.\t The<br \/>\nsaid  order was assailed in revision under Section 50 of the<br \/>\nAct.   The Revisional Court came to the conclusion that\t the<br \/>\nMunsiff had not properly appreciated the evidence on record.<br \/>\nThough\the did not set aside the findings of the Munsiff, on<br \/>\nthe   question\tof  arrears  of\t  rent\tand  the  bona\tfide<br \/>\nrequirement,  which  are  the\ttwo  grounds  under  Section<br \/>\n21(1)(a)  and  (h)  of\tthe Act, but he did  set  aside\t the<br \/>\nfinding\t on  the  third question namely whether\t tenant\t has<br \/>\nacquired  a suitable alternative premise, as required  under<br \/>\nSection\t 21(1)(p)  of  the  Act and came to  hold  that\t the<br \/>\neviction  sought for on the grounds available under  Section<br \/>\n21(1)(p)  of  the Act has to be allowed.  Against  the\tsaid<br \/>\nrevisional order of the District Judge in exercise of powers<br \/>\nunder  Section\t50  of the Act, the tenants moved  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\t The landlord also filed a revision petition against<br \/>\nthe  findings  of  the revisional Court on the\tquestion  of<br \/>\narrears\t of  rent and bona fide requirements.  The  original<br \/>\ntenant\tdied  during  the  pendency  of\t the  said  revision<br \/>\npetition and his legal heirs were substituted and brought on<br \/>\nrecord.\t  The  High  Court disposed of the revision  on\t two<br \/>\ngrounds.   Following the Judgment of this Court in the\tcase<br \/>\nof  <a href=\"\/doc\/1136830\/\">Venkatesh  Thimmaiah Gurjalkar vs.\tS.S.   Hawaldar,  JT<\/a><br \/>\n1997(8)\t SC 528, the High Court came to the conclusion\tthat<br \/>\nthe  premises  in question being non- residential and  under<br \/>\nthe  Act  the tenancy in respect of non-residential  premise<br \/>\nbeing  not heritable and admittedly the tenant having  died,<br \/>\nthe  revisional\t application is liable to be dismissed.\t  On<br \/>\nthe  question whether the provisions of Section 21(1)(p)  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  is  attracted or not, the High Court came  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  in view of the evidence of the son of\t the<br \/>\noriginal  tenant that it was the partnership firm, which was<br \/>\nrunning\t the business in the schedule premises and the\tsaid<br \/>\nfirm  has  acquired an alternative premise, it must be\theld<br \/>\nthat  the  grounds for eviction under Section  21(1)(p)\t has<br \/>\nbeen  made out.\t With these findings, the revision filed  by<br \/>\nthe  tenant  as well as the one filed by the landlord  stood<br \/>\ndismissed.   On\t grant of special leave by this Court,\tthis<br \/>\nappeal\twas  placed  before a Bench of two  learned  Judges,<br \/>\nwherein\t a contention was advanced that the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in Venkatesh Thimmaiahs case, on which the High Court<br \/>\nhas  relied upon, is contrary to the decision of this  Court<br \/>\nin  the case of Vishnu Narayan Gadskari (Dead) by L.Rs.\t vs.<br \/>\nParalal\t Baladev Uza and Ors., 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 428, and in<br \/>\nboth  the cases, the question for consideration was  whether<br \/>\nunder the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the tenancy in respect<br \/>\nof a non-residential premises can be held to be heritable or<br \/>\nnot.   In view of the two conflicting decisions, referred to<br \/>\nabove,\tthe  Bench, thought it fit to refer the matter to  a<br \/>\nlarger\tBench  and  that is how the matter has\tbeen  placed<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  learned  counsel for the appellant contends\tthat<br \/>\nthe  latter decision of this Court in Venkatesh\t Thimmaiahs<br \/>\ncase, must be held to have been not correctly decided, as it<br \/>\ndoes  not  take\t notice of the earlier\tdecision  in  Vishnu<br \/>\nNarayans  case 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 428, which was a  decision<br \/>\ninterpreting  the very same provision of the Karnataka\tRent<br \/>\nControl\t Act  and  which also relied upon  the\tConstitution<br \/>\nBench  decision\t of  this Court in Gian\t Devi  Anands  case<br \/>\n1985(2) SCC 683, wherein the pari materia provision of Delhi<br \/>\nRent Control Act, 1958 was under consideration.\t The learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t further urged that acquisition of a premises by the<br \/>\npartnership firm of which the tenant was merely a partner to<br \/>\nthe  extent  of 15%, cannot be held to be an acquisition  of<br \/>\nalternative premises by the tenant in view of the definition<br \/>\nof  tenant in Section 3(r) of the Act and the High  Court,<br \/>\ntherefore committed serious error of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  learned  counsel  appearing\tfor  the  respondent<br \/>\nhowever\t contended  that the impugned judgment of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  is  unassailable,  since it has followed\t the  latter<br \/>\ndecision  of this Court on the question of heritability of a<br \/>\nnon-residential\t premises and it has rightly interpreted the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.  According to the<br \/>\nlearned\t  counsel   for\t the   respondent,   the   so-called<br \/>\npartnership  firm  being of the father and the sons and\t the<br \/>\nsaid  firm  having acquired the premises where\tbusiness  is<br \/>\nbeing  carried on and even in the schedule premises the firm<br \/>\nin  fact was carrying on the business, though the father was<br \/>\nthe  tenant,  the  conclusion becomes irresistible  that  an<br \/>\nalternative  premises  is  now\t available  and\t  therefore,<br \/>\neviction could be ordered under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  view\tof  the rival submissions at  the  Bar,\t two<br \/>\nquestion  arise\t for  our consideration:   (1)\tWhether\t the<br \/>\ntenancy in respect of a non- residential purpose can be held<br \/>\nto  be heritable under the Karnataka Rent Control Act;\t and<br \/>\n(2)  Whether  an  individual being a tenant  of\t a  business<br \/>\npremises  and  said individual having become a partner of  a<br \/>\nfirm,  if the firm acquires vacant possession of a  suitable<br \/>\nbuilding,  whether the tenant incurs the liability of  being<br \/>\nevicted under Section 21(p) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      So  far as the first question is concerned, it  really<br \/>\ndepends\t upon an analysis of the provisions of the Act.\t The<br \/>\nexpression  premises  has been defined in Section 3(n)\tto<br \/>\nmean  a\t building as defined in clause (a) and any land\t not<br \/>\nused  for  agricultural purposes.  The building\t has  been<br \/>\ndefined\t under\tSection 3(a) to mean any building or hut  or<br \/>\npart of a building or hut other than a farm house, let or to<br \/>\nbe  let\t separately  for   residential\tor   non-residential<br \/>\npurposes  and  includes\t &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-.   The  expression<br \/>\ntenant has been defined in Section 3(r) to mean any person<br \/>\nby  whom or on whose account rent is payable for a  premises<br \/>\nand  includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or<br \/>\nfather\tor  mother of a deceased tenant who had been  living<br \/>\nwith  the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenants<br \/>\nfamily up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing<br \/>\nin  possession\tafter the termination of the tenancy in\t his<br \/>\nfavour,\t but does not include a person placed in  occupation<br \/>\nof  a  premises\t by  its  tenant or a  person  to  whom\t the<br \/>\ncollection  of rents or fees in a public market,  cart-stand<br \/>\nor slaughter house or of rents for shops has been framed out<br \/>\nor  leases  by\ta local authority.  Section 51\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\nprovides  that\tany  application made, appeal  preferred  or<br \/>\nproceeding  taken under the Act by or against any person may<br \/>\nin  the\t event of his death be continued by or\tagainst\t his<br \/>\nlegal  representatives.\t In the case of Gian Devi Anand\t vs.<br \/>\nJeevan\tKumar  and Ors., 1985 (2) SCC 683, the\tConstitution<br \/>\nBench  of this Court was considering the very question as to<br \/>\nwhether\t the tenancy in respect of a commercial premises  or<br \/>\nnon-residential\t premises can be said to be heritable  under<br \/>\nthe  Act.   Bhagwati J, concurring with the  majority  view,<br \/>\nexpressed  by  Sen  J,\tcame to hold  that  the\t distinction<br \/>\nbetween\t contractual  tenancy  and   statutory\ttenancy\t  is<br \/>\ncompletely  obliterated by the rent control legislation\t and<br \/>\nif  a  contractual tenant has an estate or interest  in\t the<br \/>\npremises  which is heritable, a statutory tenant should also<br \/>\nbe  held to have such heritable estate or interest.  In\t one<br \/>\ncase, the estate or interest is the result of contract while<br \/>\nin  the other, it is the result of statute.  But the quality<br \/>\nof the estate or interest is the same in both cases.  In the<br \/>\nmajority judgment expressed through Sen, J, it was observed:<br \/>\nKeeping\t  in  view  the\t main\tobject\tof   Rent   Control<br \/>\nLegislation,  the  position  of a tenant  whose\t contractual<br \/>\ntenancy\t has  been  determined has to be understood  in\t the<br \/>\nlight of the provisions of the Rent Acts.  Though provisions<br \/>\nof  all\t the Rent Control Acts are not uniform,\t the  common<br \/>\nfeature\t of  all  the  Rent Control Legislation\t is  that  a<br \/>\ncontractual  tenant  on the termination of  the\t contractual<br \/>\ntenancy\t is by virtue of the provisions of the Rent Acts not<br \/>\nliable\tto  be\tevicted\t as a matter  of  course  under\t the<br \/>\nordinary  law  of the land and he is entitled to  remain  in<br \/>\npossession  even  after\t determination\tof  the\t contractual<br \/>\ntenancy\t and no order or decree for eviction will be  passed<br \/>\nagainst\t a  tenant  unless  any ground\twhich  entitles\t the<br \/>\nlandlord  to get an order or decree for possession specified<br \/>\nin  the\t Act  is established.  In other\t words,\t the  common<br \/>\nfeature\t of  every  Rent  Control Act  is  that\t it  affords<br \/>\nprotection   to\t every\ttenant\t against  eviction   despite<br \/>\ntermination  of tenancy except on grounds recognised by\t the<br \/>\nAct  and  no  order or decree for eviction shall  be  passed<br \/>\nagainst\t the tenant unless any such ground is established to<br \/>\nthe satisfaction of the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After  considering  the definitions of  tenant,  the<br \/>\nlandlord  and various other provisions of the Delhi Act as<br \/>\nwell  as  the  amendment  to   the  definition\tof  tenant<br \/>\nintroduced  by the Delhi Rent Control Act Amendment Act (Act<br \/>\n18  of\t1976), which gives personal protection and  personal<br \/>\nright  of  continuing  in  possession to the  heirs  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased statutory tenant in respect of residential premises<br \/>\nonly  and  not\twith regard to the heirs  of  the  so-called<br \/>\nstatutory  tenant  in respect of commercial premises,  the<br \/>\nCourt  observed\t that  the termination\tof  the\t contractual<br \/>\ntenancy\t in view of the definition of tenant in the Act does<br \/>\nnot  bring about any change in the status and legal position<br \/>\nof  the tenant, unless there are contrary provisions in\t the<br \/>\nAct.  The Court observed in paragraph 34 of the Judgment :\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t tenant of any commercial premises has\tnecessarily<br \/>\nto use the premises for business purposes.  Business carried<br \/>\non  by a tenant of any commercial premises may be and  often<br \/>\nis,  his only occupation and the source of livelihood of the<br \/>\ntenant\tand  his  family.  Out of the income earned  by\t the<br \/>\ntenant\tfrom  his business in the commercial  premises,\t the<br \/>\ntenant maintains himself and his family;  and the tenant, if<br \/>\nhe  is residing in a tenanted house, may also be paying\t his<br \/>\nrent  out  of the said income.\tEven if a tenant is  evicted<br \/>\nfrom  his residential premises, he may with the earnings out<br \/>\nof  the business be in a position to arrange for some  other<br \/>\naccommodation  for  his\t residence with his  family.   When,<br \/>\nhowever,  a tenant is thrown out of the commercial premises,<br \/>\nhis  business which enables him to maintain himself and\t his<br \/>\nfamily\tcomes to a standstill.\tIt is common knowledge\tthat<br \/>\nit is much more difficult to find suitable business premises<br \/>\nthan  to  find\tsuitable premises for residence.  It  is  no<br \/>\nsecret\tthat  for securing commercial  accommodation,  large<br \/>\nsums  of  money\t by way of salami, even though\tnot  legally<br \/>\npayable,  may  have  to\t be paid  and  rents  of  commercial<br \/>\npremises  are usually very high.  Besides, a business  which<br \/>\nhas  been carried on for years at a particular place has its<br \/>\nown  goodwill  and other distinct advantages.  The death  of<br \/>\nthe  person  who happens to be the tenant of the  commercial<br \/>\npremises  and who was running the business out of the income<br \/>\nof which the family used to be maintained, is itself a great<br \/>\nloss  to  the  members\tof the family  to  whom\t the  death,<br \/>\nnaturally,  comes as a great blow.  Usually, on the death of<br \/>\nthe  person  who runs the business and maintains his  family<br \/>\nout  of the income of the business, the other members of the<br \/>\nfamily\twho suffer the bereavement have necessarily to carry<br \/>\non  the\t business  for the maintenance and  support  of\t the<br \/>\nfamily.\t  A running business is indeed a very valuable asset<br \/>\nand  often  a great source of comfort to the family  as\t the<br \/>\nbusiness keeps the family going.  So long as the contractual<br \/>\ntenancy\t of a tenant who carries on the business  continues,<br \/>\nthere can be no question of the heirs of the deceased tenant<br \/>\nnot  only  inheriting  the tenancy but also  inheriting\t the<br \/>\nbusiness  and  they are entitled to run and enjoy the  same.<br \/>\nWe   have  earlier  held  that\t mere  termination  of\t the<br \/>\ncontractual  tenancy does not bring about any change in\t the<br \/>\nstatus\tof  the\t tenant\t and the tenant\t by  virtue  of\t the<br \/>\ndefinition  of\tthe tenant in the Act and the  other  Rent<br \/>\nActs continues to enjoy the same status and position, unless<br \/>\nthere  be any provisions in the Rent Acts which indicate  to<br \/>\nthe  contrary.\t The mere fact that in the Act no  provision<br \/>\nhas been made with regard to the heirs of tenants in respect<br \/>\nof  commercial\ttenancies on the death of the  tenant  after<br \/>\ntermination  of the tenancy, as has been done in the case of<br \/>\nheirs  of  the\ttenants of residential\tpremises,  does\t not<br \/>\nindicate that the Legislature intended that the heirs of the<br \/>\ntenants\t of  commercial\t premises will cease  to  enjoy\t the<br \/>\nprotection  afforded  to  the  tenant under  the  Act.\t The<br \/>\nLegislature could never have possibly intended that with the<br \/>\ndeath  of a tenant of the commercial premises, the  business<br \/>\ncarried\t on by the tenant, however flourishing it may be and<br \/>\neven if the same constituted the source of livelihood of the<br \/>\nmembers\t of  the family, must necessarily come to an end  on<br \/>\nthe  death of the tenant, only because the tenant died after<br \/>\nthe contractual tenancy had been terminated.  It could never<br \/>\nhave  been the intention of the Legislature that the  entire<br \/>\nfamily of a tenant depending upon the business carried on by<br \/>\nthe  tenant  will  be completely stranded and  the  business<br \/>\ncarried\t on for years in the premises which had been let out<br \/>\nto  the\t tenant must stop functioning at the premises  which<br \/>\nthe heirs of the deceased tenant must necessarily vacate, as<br \/>\nthey  are  afforded no protection under the Act.  We are  of<br \/>\nthe  opinion that in case of commercial premises governed by<br \/>\nthe  Delhi Act, the Legislature has not though it fit in the<br \/>\nlight  of  the\tsituation  at Delhi to\tplace  any  kind  of<br \/>\nrestriction  on the ordinary law of inheritance with  regard<br \/>\nto succession.\tIt may also be borne in mind that in case of<br \/>\ncommercial  premises  the heirs of the deceased\t tenant\t not<br \/>\nonly  succeed to the tenancy rights in the premises but they<br \/>\nsucceed to the business as a whole.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It has been further held:\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  may be noticed that in some Rent Acts, provisions<br \/>\nregulating  heritability  of commercial premises, have\talso<br \/>\nbeen  made  whereas  in some Rent acts,\t no  such  provision<br \/>\neither\tin  respect of residential tenancies  or  commercial<br \/>\ntenancies has been made.  As in the present Act, there is no<br \/>\nprovision  regulating the rights of the heirs to inherit the<br \/>\ntenancy\t rights\t of  the tenant in respect of  the  tenanted<br \/>\npremises  which\t is commercial premises, the  tenancy  right<br \/>\nwhich  is heritable devolves on the heirs under the ordinary<br \/>\nlaw  of\t succession. The provisions of the  Karnataka  Rent<br \/>\nControl\t Act  directly\tcame up for consideration  before  a<br \/>\nBench  of this Court in the case of Vishnu Narayan  Gadskari<br \/>\n(Dead)\tby  L.Rs.  vs.\tParalal Baladev Uza and\t Ors.,\t1995<br \/>\nSupp  (4)  SCC 428, relying upon the aforesaid\tConstitution<br \/>\nBench  decision\t and  bearing  in  mind\t the  definition  of<br \/>\ntenant\tin  Section 3(r) of the Karnataka Act,\tthe  Court<br \/>\nheld that the tenant continues to have an estate or interest<br \/>\nin  the\t tenanted  premises and the tenancy rights  both  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of residential premises and commercial premises are<br \/>\nheritable.   In the latter decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiahs<br \/>\ncase,  neither\tthe  decision  of  the\tConstitution  Bench,<br \/>\nreferred to supra has been noticed nor the earlier two Judge<br \/>\nBench  decision of this Court on the provisions of Karnataka<br \/>\nAct  has  been noticed and relying upon the decision of\t the<br \/>\nKarnataka High Court, without any analysis of the provisions<br \/>\nof  the\t Act,  the conclusion of the Forums below  that\t the<br \/>\npremises  in  question being non- residential, the right  of<br \/>\ntenancy\t therein is not heritable has been upheld.  In\tview<br \/>\nof  the\t law laid down by the Constitution Bench as well  as<br \/>\nthe  earlier  decision\tof  this  Court\t in  Vishnu  Narayan<br \/>\nGadskaris  case,  we  have no hesitation to hold  that\tthe<br \/>\nlatter\tdecision in Venkatesh Thimmaiahs case, has not been<br \/>\ncorrectly   decided.   In  the\t absence  of  any   contrary<br \/>\nprovisions  in the Act, it must be held that the tenancy  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  a non-residential premises under the  Karnataka<br \/>\nRent  Control Act is heritable.\t The conclusion of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt to the contrary, therefore, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>      So far as the second question is concerned, it depends<br \/>\nupon the interpretation of Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.\t The<br \/>\naforesaid provision is quoted hereinbelow in extenso:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Sec.21(1)(p):   that  the\t tenant whether\t before\t or<br \/>\nafter  the coming into operation of this part has built,  or<br \/>\nacquired  vacant possession of, or been allotted, a suitable<br \/>\nbuilding.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The language of the provision is clear and unambiguous<br \/>\nand  given its plain grammatical meaning, it is\t susceptible<br \/>\nof only one construction that it is only when the tenant has<br \/>\nbuilt  or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted<br \/>\na  suitable  building, then only the provisions\t of  Section<br \/>\n21(1)(p)  of  the Act are attracted and not otherwise.\t The<br \/>\nexpression  tenant  has been defined in Section\t 3(r)  and<br \/>\nhowsoever  vide meaning to the said definition be given,  it<br \/>\nwill not bring within its scope, a partnership firm of which<br \/>\nthe  tenant  himself may be a partner.\tIn the case in\thand<br \/>\nthe  individual\t namely deceased Gantusa H.  Baddi  was\t the<br \/>\ntenant\tin  respect  of\t the premises  and  application\t for<br \/>\neviction  had  been  filed as against  him.   The  so-called<br \/>\nalternative  accommodation, has been acquired, admittedly by<br \/>\na  partnership\tfirm, no doubt, consisting of  the  original<br \/>\ntenant\tthe  father and his sons wherein the father has\t 15%<br \/>\nshare  but  it cannot be held that the said  acquisition  of<br \/>\nvacant\tpossession  is\tby the tenant.\tThe High  Court\t has<br \/>\ngiven  a  peculiar  reasoning on consideration\tof  evidence<br \/>\nadduced\t to the effect that since in the disputed  premises,<br \/>\nthe  business of the firm was carried on, though it had been<br \/>\ntenanted  to  an individual, the moment a vacant  possession<br \/>\nhas  been  acquired  by the firm, the  liabilities  incurred<br \/>\nunder  Section\t21(p) of the Act, we are unable to  pursuade<br \/>\nourselves to agree with the aforesaid conclusion of the High<br \/>\nCourt.\t In  our  considered opinion, because  of  acquiring<br \/>\nvacant\tpossession of a building by the partnership firm  of<br \/>\nwhich  the  tenant  may be a partner, the  tenant  does\t not<br \/>\nbecome\tliable\tto  be\tevicted by  application\t of  Section<br \/>\n21(1)(p) of the Act.  It is neither the case of the landlord<br \/>\nin  the\t application  for eviction that\t the  tenant  namely<br \/>\ndeceased  Gantusa H.  Baddi, has acquired vacant  possession<br \/>\nof  a  building\t nor  has it been proved in  course  of\t the<br \/>\nproceeding.   That being the position, the conclusion of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  that the tenant has incurred the  liability  of<br \/>\nhaving evicted under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act, the moment<br \/>\na  business premises is acquired by the partnership firm  is<br \/>\nerroneous and cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  view\tof  our\t aforesaid conclusion  on  both\t the<br \/>\nquestions,  this  appeal  succeeds.  The order\tof  eviction<br \/>\npassed\tby  the Revisional Authority and reaffirmed  by\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  stands quashed.  The application  for  eviction<br \/>\nstands\tdismissed.   There  will however be no order  as  to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 Author: Pattanaik Bench: S.V.Patil, R.P.Sethi, G.B.Pattanaik PETITIONER: GANTUSA H. BADDI (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MEERABAI G. PAI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2000 BENCH: S.V.Patil, R.P.Sethi, G.B.Pattanaik JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK,J. This appeal is directed against [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-17T04:48:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-17T04:48:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3391,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\",\"name\":\"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-17T04:48:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-17T04:48:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-17T04:48:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000"},"wordCount":3391,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000","name":"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-17T04:48:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gantusa-h-baddi-dead-by-lrs-vs-meerabai-g-pai-ors-on-24-april-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gantusa H. Baddi (Dead) By Lrs vs Meerabai G. Pai &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167183","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}