Back
2003(2) Supreme 613
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Mumbai High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Dwarkaprasad -Appellant
versus
Niranjan & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 1999
Decided on 4-3-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Lata Krishnamurti and Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar, Anurag Kishore and Vishwajit Singh, Advocates.
Held : In our view, even as exclusive owner of the suit property plaintiff Dwarkaprasad is entitled to seek eviction decree against the tenant qua the requirement of his brothers who are joint with him as one family. (Para 8)
The ground of eviction contained in sub-section (g) of Section 13(1) of the Act has to be liberally construed. Confining it to the landlord alone will defeat the very object of the provision. (Para 10)
In the case in hand the landlord is the head of the family being the eldest amongst the brothers. All the brothers and sisters including mother of the landlord live with him as members of the joint Hindu family. It is his obligation to settle his younger brothers in business as it is his obligation to settle his children in business. Therefore, he can legitimately seek eviction of a tenant by pleading that he needs demised premises to settle his son and his younger brothers in business. This being the legal position, the conclusion is inevitable i.e. the plaintiff - landlord must succeed and a decree for eviction is liable to be passed in his favour for the entire demised premises. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court which has granted only a decree for half portion of the suit premises is hereby modified. The landlord is held entitled to decree for possession of the entire demised premises. The decree for possession passed by the lower appellate court with respect to the entire suit premises is hereby restored. The respondents are granted three months time to vacate the suit premises and hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff-landlord. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. (Para 18)
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.-The appellant as owner landlord of Premises No. 79, Main Road, Nasik, instituted an eviction suit in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, for a decree of eviction against the respondents herein regarding the suit premises comprising ground floor and first floor of house bearing Municipal No. 79, Main Road, Nasik. According to the averments in the plaint, a portion of the suit property was given on lease vide Lease Deed dated 16.10.1971 to the defendants. The ground floor and first floor of the property along with some open space formed part of the lease in favour of defendants. The defendants had given an advance of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff. The advance amount was to be adjusted out of the monthly lease charges to the extent of 50%. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 351/-. Thus, the defendants were liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 175.50 each month and the remaining half, that is, Rs. 175.50 per month was adjusted towards the advance of Rs.15,000/-. The eviction suit was instituted mainly on two grounds, that is, default in payment of rent and bona fide need of the plaintiff for use of the demised premises by himself and members of his family. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff constitutes a joint Hindu family comprising his widowed mother, brothers and sisters. The plaintiff required accommodation for the purpose of setting up new business in order to settle his younger brothers. The plaintiff also required the suit premises for settling his son in business. The plaintiff did not have any other premises in Nasik which could be utilized for the said requirement of the plaintiff. It was averred that plaintiff s two younger brothers were not having any independent business. They were only attending to the restaurant business carried on by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff so many members of the family in one business were neither required nor it was profitable and advisable to have all the family members in one business. The younger brothers were competent enough to set up their own independent business and for that purpose the suit premises was most suitable.
2. The trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1994. The respondent-tenant filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court in the court of the District Judge, Nasik. The same was disposed of by IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik. vide his judgment dated 30th August, 1997. The lower appellate court rejected the ground regarding default in payment of rent but maintained the decree of eviction passed by the trial court on the second ground, that is personal bona fide need of the plaintiff-landlord regarding the suit premises. The tenant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay. By the impugned judgment the High Court partly affirmed the eviction decree. The personal bona fide need of the landlord qua the requirement of half portion of demised premises for setting up business of his son was accepted while the need for setting up of business by the brothers of the landlord in the other half portion was rejected on the ground that requirement of brothers could not be considered specially when they did not have any proprietary interest in the property. This resulted in the landlord being granted eviction decree only with respect to 50% of the demised premises. The premises was split into two equal portions as per the decree of the High Court - one portion goes to the landlord by virtue of the eviction decree while the other portion remains with the tenant. The landlord has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant confined her argument to the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the entire suit premises. The other ground regarding default in payment of rent is not requi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
