2009 Supreme(SC) 1629

2009(6) Supreme 772
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Ram Babu Agarwal — Appellant
versus
Jay Kishan Das — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2003
Decided on : 07-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
1. A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in new business. That does not mean that his claim of bonafide need for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim.
2. It is well settled that a statutory provision cannot control a constitutional provision

Headnote:Rent and Eviction Laws –Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961– Suit for Eviction filed by appellant landlord on grounds of default in payment of rent – High Court recorded a finding of fact that the entire rent had been deposited by the tenant in compliance with order of High Court passed in a revision petition – Appeal thereagainst on plea that even if the tenant had paid the rent up to the proceedings in the High Court, if he had committed default in payment of rent after the judgment of the High Court and during the pendency of the special leave petition/appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India provisions of Section 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would apply and the defence of the tenant would have to be struck off – Held It is well settled that a statutory provision cannot control a constitutional provision – An appeal is a creature of the statute and the conditions mentioned in Section 13(6) of the Act will apply to the statutory appeal and not to the constitutional remedy – That is because a constitutional provision is on a higher pedestal as compared to a statutory provision- A statute cannot control the constitutional provisions –Hence held that provisions of section 13(6) of the Act would apply only to the statutory appeals under the Act and not to the constitutional remedy under Article 136 of the Constitution (Paras 6)

        Rent and Eviction Laws – Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Suit for Eviction filed by appellant landlord on ground of bonafide need – Plea of landlord that he required the premises for his son who wanted to do footwear business in premises in question – High Court held that since Landlords son had no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, there was no bonafide need – Appeal – A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in new business – That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim – Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business,and sometimes they are successful in the new business also – Hence held that High Court should have gone deeper into the question of bona fide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Landlords son had no experience in foot wear business – Impugned judgments of High Court and the trial Court on question of bona fide need set aside and matter remanded to trial Court only to decide the issue of bona fide need Afresh – Appeal allowed (Paras 7 to10)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court dismissing suit for eviction filed by appellant landlord against the tenant on two grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide need.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court held that since Landlords son had no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, there was no bonafide need.A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also. Hence held that High Court should have gone deeper into the question of bona fide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Landlords son had no experience in foot wear business. Impugned judgments of High Court and the trial Court on question of bona fide need were set aside and matter was remanded to trial Court only to decide the issue of bona fide need afresh.

       Result : Appeal allowed