IMPORTANT POINTS
The “bona fide requirement” must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need.
A landlord seeking eviction for business of his son cannot be denied the same merely because the son is engaged in a business in the meantime.
Critical date for deciding bona fide requirement of landlord is the date of filing the application for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No.279 of 2007 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court for eviction of appellant from the suit premises.

2. The appellant is a tenant in the shop measuring 6.3 feet x 15 feet on the ground floor of a building located at Sarrafa Bazar, Muraina, Madhya Pradesh. The respondent No.1 filed a civil suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit shop on the ground of bona fide requirement to settle his son Rajendra Kumar Jain. By judgment dated 30.06.2004, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that Rajendra Kumar was already doing an independent business of utensils and he was not unemployed and also found that respondent-landlord has not established the genuine bona fide requirement. The trial court dismissed the suit by finding that there is no ground for decree of eviction against the appellant herein under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. So far as the arrear of rent is concerned, the trial court found that no ground for eviction was made out under Section 12 (1)(a) of the Act.

3. The respondent -landlord appealed against the judgment of the trial court. The first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court by holding that the documents produced by the appellant that they pertain to the year 1996, 2000 and 2001 and those documents do not show that Rajendra Kumar was engaged in the business on the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 22.01.1992. The first appellate court held that the bona fide requirement of the suit shop is to be examined on the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22.01.1992. After referring to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bishanswaroop v. Rajkumar Kuchata & Ors., 2015 (1) M.P.A.C.J. 151, the first appellate court held that it would be inappropriate to expect that the land owner should sit idle and not to perform any work till the suit for eviction is decided on the basis of bona fide requirement. Observing that the landlord has established the bona fide requirement for establishing business for his son Rajendra Kumar, the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and allowed the first appeal.

4. The second appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed upholding the judgment passed by the first appellate court that once landlord establishes the bona fide requirement by evidence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, technicalities raised by the defendant – tenant should be ignored. Insofar as the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring on record the additional documents to show that the respondent-landlord on 14.11.2006 obtained vacant possession of the adjacent shop from tenant Babulal is concerned, the High Court held that the same is of no avail to the appellant – defendant. Being aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the conditions required for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12 (1)(f) of the Act was not proved in as much as, the son of the respondent -landlord was already in the business of utensils from the shop in the same building and this aspect was not properly considered by the High Court. It was submitted that the High Court has not appreciated the additional evidence adduced by the appellant that the other tenant Babulal has vacated the shop occupied by him. Placing reliance upon Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal (2001) 5 SCC 705, it was contended that the requirement of the landlord which has not been established in the case must continue to exist till the final decision of the court.

6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent -landlord placed reliance upon Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 and submitted