1. Eviction petition under Section 23-A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on grounds of bona fide personal requirement for starting a business. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 828
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand : V.N.Khare
Vishwanath
Versus
Hidayatt Ullah
Case No. : 5383 , 5384 of 1997
Date of Decision : 8/19/98
A pensioner's receipt of an adequate pension does not preclude or negate a bona fide need to start a business after retirement for the purpose of seeking eviction of a tenant under accommodation control laws.
Headnote:(A) Accommodation Control Act - Section 23-A(b) - Eviction on ground of bona fide personal requirement - Landlord, a retired government servant, sought eviction to start a business for himself and his son - High Court set aside eviction order on grounds of inadequate pleadings and the fact that the landlord was a pensioner - There is no presumption that a pensioner who has adequate pension cannot have bona fide need to start his business after retirement - Pleadings must be read as a whole to determine the intent of the party. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A retired government servant (landlord) filed a petition for eviction of a tenant under the relevant accommodation control act, stating the premises were needed to start a business for himself and his unemployed son. The Rent Controlling Authority allowed the petition. However, the High Court reversed this decision, observing that the pleadings did not clearly assert the landlord's own need and that his status as a pensioner implied a lack of bona fide need.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court misread the pleadings, which unequivocally stated the premises were required for the landlord's own business as well as for his son. It further held that the High Court's reasoning regarding the pension was irrational and unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the pleadings sufficiently established the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for the premises and whether the receipt of a pension precludes a landlord from establishing such a need.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a pensioner's receipt of an adequate pension does not create a presumption against the bona fide need to start a business post-retirement. Additionally, when pleadings clearly indicate the landlord's intent to use the premises for their own business, the requirement is established.
Result: Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. Order of the Rent Controlling Authority restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the employment of the landlord's son negates the bona fide requirement and whether pleadings sufficiently established the landlord's personal need for the premises. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The High Court misread pleadings and erroneously presumed that a pensioner with adequate income cannot have a bona fide need to start a business. (Para 4 )
4. A pensioner's receipt of an adequate pension does not preclude a bona fide requirement to start a business after retirement. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and Rent Controlling Authority's eviction order restored, with time granted to the tenant to vacate. (Para 4 , 6 )
6. Does the employment of a family member for whom premises were sought negate the landlord's bona fide requirement?
Not necessarily. If the landlord has independently pleaded and established a bona fide need for the premises for their own business, the employment status of a family member intended to join them is not the sole determining factor. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Does receiving an adequate pension disqualify a retired government servant from claiming bona fide need to start a business?
No. There is no legal presumption that a pensioner who possesses an adequate pension cannot have a bona fide need to start a business after retirement. (Para 4 )
8. What is the effect of misreading pleadings on a finding of bona fide need?
If the pleadings unequivocally state the requirement for the premises, a court cannot set aside an eviction order based on a finding of lacking pleadings through a misreading of the record. (Para 3 , 4 )
(1) THE appellant is the landlord while the respondent is the tenant. The appellant who is a retired government servant filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 23-A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement for starting his business. It was also pleaded in the eviction petition that the son of Appellant 1 was an unemployed youth having no source of income and that he was also to join the father in running the business. The precise pleadings in this behalf were contained in para 10 of the petition. That paragraph reads thus:
"10. That Applicant 2 is a widow and Applicant I is a retired government servant from the Ordnance Factory, JabalpuR.Applicant 2 is a widow and is unemployed at present. Similarly, Applicant ls son Sudhir Kumar is also unemployed having no source of income. The shop in occupation of the non-applicant is bona fide needed by the applicants and for the need of the son of Applicant 1 to start a kirana shop therein. The applicants have no other alternative suitable accommodation of their own in the city of Jabalpur to start a kirana business. The non-applicant is, therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit premises for the need of the applicants under Section 23-A(b) of the Act."
(2) THE petition for eviction was contested. Evidence was led by the parties. While the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controlling Authority, an application was filed by the tenant stating that the son of the appellant, for whose benefit also the shop was required to be got vacated, had since joined employment at Jabalpur and, therefore, the bona fide need of the son no longer subsisted. To that application, a reply was filed by the landlord staling that the employment of the son was not relevant, since the disputed premises were required by the landlord for running his own business where the son was going to join him and, therefore, the premises were required by the landlord for his bona fide need of starting his business. After considering the evidence on the record, the learned Rent Controlling Authority, vide order dated 2/7/1996, came to the conclusion that the appellant had established his bona fide need and consequently allowing the petition, directed the tenant to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the landlord. The order of the Rent Controlling Authority was put in issue by the tenant through a revision petition in the High court. On 1/11/1996, the High court set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The landlord is in appeal before us by special leave.
(3) IN upsetting the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, the High court observed that there had been no clear pleadings to assert that the landlord required the premises for opening a kirana shop for himself and, therefore, eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord was not established.
(4) THERE appears to be a complete misreading of the pleadings by the High court. Even a cursory look at para 10 of the petition (supra) shows that the landlord had unequivocally pleaded that the premises were required for starting a business for himself as well as for the benefit of his son. There was therefore, no warrant to say that pleadings in that behalf were lacking. Besides the pleadings, the High court also failed to appreciate the evidence on the record which clearly established that the landlord bona fide required the premises for starting his own business. The opinion of the High court that since the landlord, a retired government servant, had not stated that his pension was not adequate, it implied that there was no bona fide need for him to start any business is wholly unsustainable and not at all rational. There is no presumption that a pensioner who has adequate pension cannot have bona fide need to start his business after retirement. The High court not only m
