IMPORTANT POINT
In the facts and circumstances of this case where Court below ignored statutory mandate of alternate non-residential accommodation already available to landlord in assessing his bonafide need for impunged shop, High Court was justified in Second Appeal u/s. 100 C.P.C. to set aside such judgments.

Headnote:M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 12(1)(f)-Eviction petition on ground of bonafide need of major son for non-residential purpose-Other vacant shop room was already in occupation of landlord at the time of filing of eviction petition-Another shop fell vacant pending suit-Major son also allotted a shop-Rent Controller decreed eviction-Upheld by 1st appellate Court-High Court in second appeal u/s 100 C.P.C. set aside concurrent findings on ground that need was not bonafide as landlord had alternative non-residential accommodation -Appeal to Supreme Court by special leave-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in interferring with concurrent judgments of the Courts below in holding that landlord required the shop bonafide for use of his major son? (Yes)-Case Law referred -Appeal dismissed-(Cross Ref. C.P.C. 1908-Section 100-Second Appeal-Constitution of India-Art. 136-Appeal by special leave to SC).
       Held : The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The bonafide requirement must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable (non?)-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind the statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment. In such case the High Court cannot be faulted for interfering with the finding in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 15)
       After referring 1999 (6) SCC 222 the High Court clearly bears out the position that the lower courts had failed to consider the requirement of the section regarding availability of reasonable accommodation in occupation of the landlord-appellant. As noted earlier, at the time of filing the suit, one vacant shop-room was in occupation of the landlord and in course of the proceedings one more shoproom, on being vacated by the tenant, came in his occupation. The High Court has found that the landlord could easily make arrangements for starting the shop which his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta intends to open in the vacant shoprooms. If any adjustment was necessary, then the tenant-respondent could also have been offered an alternate shoproom for his occupation. No such step was taken by the landlord during all these years. During the hearing of this appeal, we made a suggestion to the learned counsel appearing for the landlord-appellant, whether he is willing to permit the tenant-respondent to occupy the shoproom presently in his (landlord) occupation so that he may have a block of four shoprooms for the business of himself and his son. The learned counsel stated that the landlord, who was present in the Court, declined to accept the suggestion. (Para 17)
       Held consequently on the discussions in the judgment there is hardly any scope for doubt that the requirement of the landlord cannot be termed to be a bonafide requirement within the meaning of the Statute (noticed above). The High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent judgments in the contextual facts and the same does not warrant any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18)
       Held finally : Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment/decree passed by the High Court stands confirmed. No order however as to costs. (Para 19)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - A landlord must prove a bonafide requirement for non-residential accommodation, not a mere whim or fanciful desire (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The requirement must be shown to be in praesenti and based on actual need, and the landlord must have no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in occupation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Courts must examine whether the lower court applied the statutory provisions to the evidence; failure to do so vitiates the judgment (!) (!) (!) . - A High Court can set aside a rent controller’s order on second appeal if the order is patently illegal or suffers from a glaring mistake leading to manifest injustice (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The burden is on the landlord to show that alternative accommodation was considered or offered, and refusal to permit tenant occupation of available space supports finding of non-bonafide need (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the statutory requirement for a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need for non-residential use?

What must a court examine when determining whether a landlord’s requirement is bonafide under the Act?

On what grounds can a High Court set aside a rent controller’s order in a second appeal regarding eviction?

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal filed by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No.81/98 in which the Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the courts below and dismissed the suit. The appellant, who is the landlord of the suit premises filed Civil Suit No.4-A/92 in the Court of the 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Hoshangabad seeking eviction of the respondent, the tenant on the grounds of default and bonafide requirements under Sections 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) respectively.

3. The suit premises is one of the five shop rooms on the ground floor of the building owned by the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that he needs the shop room in occupation of the defendant for the purpose of opening a new shop for his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta.

4. The defendant refuted both the grounds taken in support of the plea of his eviction. He denied that he was in arrear of rent and also that the landlord had any bonafide need for the premises. The defendant further pleaded that one other shop room which was previously let out to Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal was lying vacant long prior to the filing of the suit on 4.1.1988 and that during pendency of the suit another shop room which was in occupation of one Kailash Jatav had been vacated. It was also the case of the defendant that Pradeep Kumar Gupta for whose benefit his (defendant) eviction was sought had been allotted shop room No. 31 in Ravi Shankar Market in Hoshangabad. In these circumstances, the defendant contended, there was no bonafide need of the landlord for the suit premises. It was the further case of the defendant that indeed the landlord wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 225/- p.m. to Rs. 400/- p.m. which he (defendant) did not agree to pay. Hence the suit for eviction.

5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The appellant, while admitting the fact that the shop room which was vacated by the tenants Krishnabai and Krishnagopal was at his disposal but that shoproom was not suitable for starting the business of sale of clothes and tailoring materials which his son intends to start. He was also constrained to admit that shop No. 31 of Ravi Shankar Market had been allotted in the name of his son-Pradeep Kumar Gupta. Regarding the shop room vacated by Kailash Jatav the explanation of the landlord was that it is a small triangular shaped room which is not suitable for the purpose for which eviction is sought. The thrust of his contention was that on getting vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendant, he will amalgamate that room with the room vacated by Krishnabai and Krishnagopal and make it into one room.

6. From the side of the defendant on the other hand, an attempt was made to show that the need pleaded by the landlord on the materials on record, can never be said to be bonafide need. The action of the plaintiff for getting him evicted from the suit premises, according to the defendant, was purely, arbitrary and whimsical.

7. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, did not accept the case of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrear of rent. Though the fact of arrear was proved the tenant had deposited the amount on receiving notice under Section 13 of the Act and therefore, the trial Court held that that would not be the basis of a decree of eviction. The case of the plaintiff for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement was accepted by the trial Court and the suit for eviction of the defendant was decreed.

8. The appeal filed by the defendant-tenant proved unsuccessful.

9. In Second Appeal the High Court initially formulated the following question of law for decision:

"Whether in view of the admitted position that the shop belonging to Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal as well as that of Vishal Tailors was already vacated,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 920

What is the statutory requirement for a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need for non-residential use?

What must a court examine when determining whether a landlord’s requirement is bonafide under the Act?

On what grounds can a High Court set aside a rent controller’s order in a second appeal regarding eviction?

Cases Referred (1)