Back
1994 Supreme(SC) 1427
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Sahai, N.P. Singh, JJ.
Dr. D.C. Rai - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Makhmal Bai - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2764 of 1991
Decided On : 22-11-1994
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 23A regarding the nature of the premises and the landlord's possession of reasonably suitable accommodation.
Headnote:
Section 23A - Eviction - Residential or Non-Residential Premises - Landlord's Reasonably Suitable Accommodation
Fact of the Case:
The landlady's application for eviction of the tenant under Section 23A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Rent Control Authority, but the High Court found that the premises were let out for residential purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the premises were let out for residential purposes and that the landlady did not establish a claim that the premises were let out for non-residential purposes. The court also noted that the appellant-tenant was an affluent person who owned more than one building and was getting a significant amount of rent.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the premises (residential or non-residential) and whether the landlady was possessed of reasonably suitable accommodation as required under Section 23A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the premises were let out for residential purposes and the appellant-tenant's financial status, which led the court to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
This is tenant's appeal. The landlady's application under Section 23A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the appellant as the premises were bonafide needed by her was dismissed. One of the reasons which weighed with the Rent Control Authority was that the premises having been let out for non-residential purposes the application under Section 23A was not maintainable. The High Court after appreciation of evidence recorded the finding that premises were let out for residential purposes. It perused the agreement entered between parties and came to conclusion that it did not establish the claim of appellant that premises were let out for non- residential purpose. The finding whether premises were let out for residential or non-residential purpose is a finding of fact.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that even assuming that premises were let out for residential purpose, the application was liable to be dismissed as the Section further required that the landlord should not be possessed of reasonably suitable accommodation. He urged that there being another house in 11th Line, Itarsi, and in any case accommodation being available at ground floor the landlady was possessed of reasonably suitable accommodation and her application under Section 23A was liable to be dismissed. The legal position as urged cannot be doubted. But even the Rent Control Officer did not reject the application for this reason. However, we would have remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh decision on this aspect, but it has come on record that the appellant-tenant is an affluent person who owns more than one building and is getting nearly Rs. 4000/- as rent. Therefore, we refrain from exercising our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. But parties shall bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.
