2017 Supreme(SC) 163

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
MEHMOODA GULSHAN – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
JAVAID HUSSAIN MUNGLOO – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1398-1399 OF 2011
Decided On : 17-02-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Need is a matter of appreciation of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Rent and Eviction – Bonafide reasonable requirement of landlord – There is a difference between desire and requirement – Requirement means when objectively seen there must be necessity with party to require premises for his own use – It is not a sheer desire only whether landlord may show his intent to occupy premises – There is a difference between two situations – Need of landlord must be pressing one and real – Question of requirement always differs from case to case depending on facts of its own. (Para 5)

       (B) Rent and Eviction – Comparative Hardship – Law will lean in favour of person to whom the greater inconvenience and hardship is caused and would grant relief to landlord only when his hardships are likely to exceed hardships which may be caused to tenant – Question of comparative advantage and disadvantage has an important bearing on question of granting or refusing relief – Question of balance of convenience or principle of comparative advantage and disadvantage will come up only when court is satisfied that premises are reasonably required by landlord or any person for whose behalf house or shop is held – But before this is to be decided, court has to find and determine two things i.e. reasonable requirements of landlord or person for whose benefit house or shop is held; and, comparative advantage and disadvantage of landlord or any person and tenant and these two ingredients must coexist. (Para 5)

       (C) Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 – Section 11(1)(h) – Bonafide reasonable requirement of landlord – Ambit of – Plaintiff does not possess any commercial building other than suit premises where her son could start any business for his sustenance – Evidences on file is sufficient to prove that son of plaintiff is in his 30s and is still idle – In these hard times, family requirements cannot be met by mere rent of Rs. 5000/- which defendant is paying – It has been proved by plaintiff that plaintiff requires suit premises for her unemployed son – Defendant has not been able to convince court that son of plaintiff is in any manner associated with business of his father at Cochin – Mere non-examination of family member who intends to do business cannot be taken as a ground for repelling reasonable requirement of landlord – Premises sought to be evicted is not held for benefit of son alone but whole family – It is for own occupation of landlord – It is for landlord to decide as to best use premises should be put to – There is nothing wrong on part of a landlord in making plans for a better living by doing business engaging her son – Judgment of Single Judge in first appeal and confirmed in intra-court appeal by Division Bench set aside – Judgment and decree of trial court restored and respondent granted a period of three months to surrender vacant possession. (Paras 5, 14, 21 and 22)

       Facts of Case:

       Appellant filed Civil Suit seeking eviction of respondent from premises let out to him for a period of eleven months. Tenancy was verbally extended for a further period of eleven months though it was contention of respondent that extension was for eleven years. Since, premises was not vacated after extended period of eleven months, suit was filed for eviction. Division Bench concurred with Single Judge and held that appellant has failed to prove that premises was required for own occupation, and hence, instant appeal.

       Findings of Court:

       Question is whether there is a reasonable requirement by landlord of premises. This would depend on whether landlord has been able to establish a genuine element of need for premises. What is a genuine need would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because landlord has not examined the member of family who intends to do business in premises, he cannot be non-suited in case he has otherwise established a genuine need. Need is a matter of appreciation of evidence and once there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence on need, said finding of fact cannot be reopened.

       Result : Appeals allowed.