RAMNIKAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA vs INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH

The Supreme Court held that under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, a landlord can seek eviction if he requires the premises for his own occupation, even if alterations are intended. The Court clarified that the requirement for occupation does not necessitate the absence of alterations, and the provisions of Section 13 are designed to protect the landlord's right to eject tenants when there is a bona fide need. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the respondent's need for the premises was genuine.