Back
2001 (2) JLJ 196
(SUPREME COURT)
D.P. Mohapatra and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Deenanath v. Pooranlal
Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 2001; against the judgment and order of the MP.
High Court, passed in Second Appeal No. 81 of 1998; Decided on 11.7.2001.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -S. 12(1) (f) - erroneous finding -- illegally arrived at -- vitiates entire judgment -- High Court can interfere.
The legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable nond`residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the Court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the Court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior Court will be justified‘ in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bona fide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question, the Court has to bear in mind the statutory mandate incorporated in section 12 (1) (f). If it is found that the Court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bona-fide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment. In such case the High Court cannot be faulted for interfering with the finding in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 15
(3) Words and Phrases -- phrase "required bona fide" occurring in S. 12 (i) (f) of MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- requirement which is an aoutcome of a sincere, honest desire u in contra-distinction with mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant.
The term bona fide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by ‘requires‘ is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase ‘required bona fide‘ is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of a whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. (1999) 6 SCC 222 referred to. [Para 16
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- High Court is obliged to test order of lower Court on touchstone of law fullness -- may reappraise evidence for this limited purpose. [Para 16
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 12¼1½¼p½&Uk;ky; }kjk lk{; ij dkuwuh mica/k ykxw ugha fd, x,&okLrfod vko‘;drk ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ&dsoy rF;kRed fu"d"kZ ugha jg tkrk&mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vihy esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 100&e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961&/kkjk 12¼1½¼p½&xyr fu"d"kZ&voS/k :i ls fudyk x;k&laiw.kZ fu.kZ; nwf"kr gks tkrk gS&mPp U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA
fo/kk;h vkKk Li"V rFkk vlafnaX/k gksus ds dkj.k] U;k;ky; csn[kyh vthZ esa ;Fkk vfHkokd~ Hkw&Lokeh dh vko‘;drk gh ugha] vfirq ;g ijh{k.k djus dks Hkh drZO; }kjk vkc) gS fd D;k uxj@djcs esa mlds vf/kHkksx esa dksbZ vU; ;qfDr;qDr% mi;qZDr fuoklsrj LFkku miyC/k gSA U;k;ky;@çkf/kdj.k ds vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh ds ftl fu.kZ;@vkns‘k ls nf‘kZr ugha gks fd U;k;ky;@çkf/kdj.k }kjk bu dkuwuh vis{kkvksa ds çfr euksfu;ksx fd;k x;k Fkk] mls dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrk rFkk ofj"B U;k;ky; }kjk vihy@f}rh; vihy@iqujh{k.k esa vkns‘k myVk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA çFke n`f"V esa] okLrfod vko‘;drk rF;kRed ç‘u çrhr gksrk gSA ijarq bl ç‘u ij fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djrs le; U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ esa lfEefyr dkuwuh vkKk dks /;ku esa j[kk tkuk gksxkA ;fn fu"d"kZ fudys fd U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkys[kxr lk{; ij dkuwuh mica/kksa dks lgh ifjçs{; esa ykxw ugha fd;k x;k gS rc okLrfod vko‘;drk ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ dsoy rF;kRed fu"d"kZ ugha jg tkrk D;ksafd voS/k :i ls fudkys x, ,sls xyr fu"d"kZ ls laiw.kZ fu.kZ; nwf"kr gks tk,xkA ,sls ekeys esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 100 ds v/khu viuh f}rh; vihy vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr dj fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk xyr ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ¿iSjk 15
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ esa ç;qDr okD; ^^okLrfod vko‘;drk gS**&og vko‘;drk gS tks lPph] bZekunkjk okaNk dk ifj.kke gS&vfHk/kkjh dks csn[ky djus ds fy, feF;kdFku ;k cgkus ek= ls foijhrA
vfHkO;fDr okLrfod vFkok vlyh ls eu%fLFkfr fufnZ"V gSA vko‘;drk dsoy okaNk ugha gSA ^vko‘;drk gS* vuq/;kr rhozrk dk ifj.kke] dsoy okaNk ls dgha vf/kd gSA okD;ka‘k ^okLrfod vko‘;drk gS* ls ;g fo/kk;h vk‘k; bafxr gS fd HkkM+k fu;a=.k fo/kku esa lud ;k euekuh ls ifj.kr ckaNk&ek= dks /;ku esa gh j[kk x;k gSA vius fy, vFkok dqVqac ls fdlh lnL; ds fy, ifjlj ij vf/kHkksx dk nkok djus okys Hkw&Lokeh dh vksj ls] vfHk/kkjh dks csn[ky djus ds fy, feF;kdFku ;k cgkus&ek= ls foijhr] eglwl dh xbZ ,slh vko‘;drk ds :i esa tks lPph bZekunkj okaNk dk ifj.kke gS] og vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh dh bZIlk djus dk gdnkj gksxkA ¼1999½ 6 ,l lh lh 222 fufnZ"VA ¿iSjk 16
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 100&mPp U;k;ky;] fupys U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k fof/kiw.kZrk dh dlkSVh ij ij[kus dks vkc) gS&bl lhfer ç;kstu ds fy, lk{; dks iqu% vk¡dk tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 16
Mohapatra, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal filed by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 81 of 1998 in which the Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the Court below and dismissed the suit. The appellant, who is the landlord of the suit premises filed Civil Suit No. 4A of 1992 in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Class I, Hoshangabad seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of default and bona fide requirement under sections l2 (1) (a) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") respectively.
3. The suit premises is one of the five shop rooms on the ground floor of the building owned by the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that he needs the shop room in occupation of the defendant for the purpose of opening a new shop for his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta. .
4. The defendant refuted both the grounds taken in support of the plea for his eviction. He. denied that he was in arrears of rent and also that the landlord had any bona fide need for the premises. The defendant further pleaded that one other shop room which was previously let out to Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal was lying vacant long prior to the filing of the suit on 4.1.1988 and that during pendency of the suit another shop room which was in occupation of one Kailash Jatav had been vacated. It was also the case of the defendant that Pradeep Kumar Gupta for whose benefit his (defendants) eviction was sought had been allotted shop Room No. 31 in Ravi Shankar Market in Hoshangabad. In these circumstances, the defendant contended, there was no bona fide need of the landlord for the suit premises. It was the further case of the defendant that indeed the landlord wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 225 p.m. to Rs. 400-/ p.m. which he (defendant) did not agree to pay. Hence, the suit for eviction.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The appellant, while admitting the fact that the shop room which was vacated by the tenants Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal was at his disposal but that shop room was not suitable for starting the business of sale of clothes and tailoring materials which his son intends to start. He was also constrained to admit that Shop No. 31 of Ravi Shankar Market had been allotted in the name of his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta. Regarding the shop room .vacated by Kailash Jatav the explanation of the landlord was that it is a small triangular-shaped room which is not suitable for the purpose for which eviction is sought. The thrust of his contention was that on getting vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendant, he will amalgamate that room with the room vacated by Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal and make it into one room.
6. From the side of the defendant on the other hand, an attempt was made to show that the need pleaded by the landlord on the materials on record; can never be said to be a bona fide need. The action of the plaintiff for getting him evicted from the suit premises, according to the defendant, was purely arbitrary and whimsical.
7. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, did not accept the case of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. Though the fact of arrears was proved, the tenant had deposited the amount on receiving notice under section 13 of the Act and therefore, the trial Court held that that would not be the bias of a decree of eviction. The case of the plaintiff for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement was accepted by the trial Court and the suit for eviction of the defendant was decreed.
8. The appeal filed by the defendant tenant proved unsuccessful.
9. In second. appeal the High Court initially formulated the following question of law for decision:
"Whether in view of the admitted position that the shop• belonging to Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal as well as that of
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
