Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 380
S.C. Pandey, J.
Hakimuddin Saifi
vs
Prem Narayan Barchhiha
Decided On : 9 July, 1997
A landlord cannot suppress the fact of having vacant accommodation when filing a suit for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The landlord must plead and prove that the alternative accommodation is not reasonably suitable for the purpose for which eviction is sought.
Headnote:
EVICTION - M. P. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 12(1)(F) - INGREDIENTS - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - LANDLORD'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE VACANT ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION OF 'NON-RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION' - SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant under section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming that he required the suit shop bona fide for opening a provision store for his unemployed son and that he had no reasonably suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of his own. The appellant denied the respondent's claim and pleaded that the suit shop was not required bona fide by the respondent and that he had a suitable alternative accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent did not require the suit shop bona fide for starting the business of his son. However, the lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and granted a decree of eviction in favor of the respondent without recording any finding on the issue of bona fide requirement.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent proved all the ingredients of section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in order to get a decree of eviction against the appellant? 2. Whether the respondent had any other suitable accommodation for the business of his son?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 requires a landlord to prove the following ingredients in order to succeed in a suit for eviction on that ground: (i) That the suit accommodation must be non-residential or in other words it must be let for non-residential purpose. (ii) That the aforesaid accommodation must be required bona fide. (iii) That bona fide requirement must be for starting or continuing the business. (iv) That the above named business must be for the business of the landlord, or any of his major sons, or unmarried daughters as the case may be. (v) That either the landlord or the person on whose benefit the landlord holds the accommodation must be the owner of the same. (vi) That the landlord or the person mentioned hereinbefore has no reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town where the accommodation is situate. 2. A landlord cannot suppress the fact if he had any vacant accommodation on the ground it is residential when he files suit for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. He must come with a plea that there is a vacant alternative accommodation with him but it is not reasonably suitable as it cannot be used for non-residential purpose. 3. The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove that the alternative accommodation is not reasonably suitable for the purpose for which he is seeking eviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the trial court's decision was upheld. The suit for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the Act against the appellant failed.
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1989 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/87, arising out of judgment and decree dated 27-1-1987 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 29-A/86.
2. Only the facts relevant for determination of this appeal are stated as follows. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 29-A/86, for ejectment from the suit shop, against the appellant under section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act'). The relevant pleadings of respondent in respect of ground for eviction under the aforesaid section are given in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint. It was stated therein that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the suit shop. He had an unemployed son whose name was Dinesh Kumar. The respondent required the suit shop bona fide for opening a provision store for his son. The respondent claimed that he had no reasonably suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of his own for starting the business of his son. In this appeal, we are not concerned with other reliefs claimed by the respondent and, therefore, they are not mentioned here.
3. The appellant did not deny that the respondent was the owner of the suit shop. The rest of the allegations made in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint were denied as 'not true and false'. It was further pleaded that suit shop was not required by the respondent bona fide for starting the business of his son. It was denied that Dinesh Kumar was unemployed and he was likely to start the business of running a provision store. It was emphatically denied that the son of the appellant was not in a position to start a provision store without the suit shop being vacated or his son had no suitable accommodation of his own for starting the business.
4. The trial Court on these pleadings framed the following relevant issues amongst others :-
(a) "Whether the plaintiff required the suit shop bona fide for the business of his son?
(b) Whether the plaintiff had any other suitable accommodation for the business of his son?"
5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondent did not require the suit shop bona fide for starting the business of his son. However, it gave finding on issue '(a)' in favour of the respondent.
6. In appeal, filed by the respondent, the Court below has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, on the ground that the suit shop was bona fide required by him for starting the business of his son, and granted a decree of eviction in favour of the respondent without recording any finding on issue No. (a).
7. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 2-2-1990 on the following substantial question of law :-
"Whether the court below was justified in granting a decree under section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case?"
8. Since, the learned counsel for the respondent had argued that question of law framed by the Court is not specific, this Court frames an additional question of law involved in this case in exercise of its powers under section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as follows :-
"Whether respondent has proved all the ingredients of section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in order to get a decree of eviction against the appellant?"
9. This appeal was argued by the learned counsel for the parties on the basis of the above question of law framed by this Court. The connected Second Appeal No. 409/89 involves the common questions of facts and law and, therefore, the judgment in this appeal shall govern the disposal of that appeal too.
10. In this appeal, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent cannot get a decree under section 12(1)(f) of 'the Act', unless he proved that requirement was bona fide
