Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Radheshyam - Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar and Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 354 of 2013
Decided On : 16-05-2019
For the Appellant :V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate and Vinay Gandhi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.K. Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Rahul Sethi, Advocate.
The landlord must establish bona fide need and lack of alternative accommodation for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Headnote:
M.P. Accommodation Control Act - Eviction Suit - Section 12(1)(f) - Summary of Acts and Sections: M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Section 12(1)(f)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendants, claiming bona fide need of the suit shop for business expansion. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove bona fide need and lack of alternative accommodation. The first appellate court reversed this finding, considering the plaintiff's need for suitable accommodation for business expansion.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff had proved his bona fide need and lack of alternative accommodation for business expansion.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden to establish bona fide need and lack of alternative accommodation is on the landlord. The plaintiff's need for suitable accommodation for business expansion was considered, and the court held that the plaintiff's right to choose the nature and place of business is paramount.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the first appellate court's decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Rusia, J.
1. The appellant Radheshyam (since dead, now represented through legal heirs) has filed this second appeal against judgment and decree dated 14.8.2013 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 29/2012, whereby judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012 passed by 9th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 10A/2011 dismissing the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, for short, "the Act of 1961"), has been reversed and decreed the suit under section 12(1) (f) of the Act of 1961.
2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
(i) Respondent (here in after referred as 'plaintiff) filed the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Late Radheshyam (here in after referred as 'defendant no. 1') and his brother Satyanarayan (here in after referred as 'defendant no. 2'). As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is owner of the ground floor shop having Municipal No.492 (old No.391), Jawahar Marg, Indore of area 16 x 20 Sq. ft. (hereinafter, for short, "suit shop"). The suit shop was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale-deed No. 1A/6206 dated 30.3.1998 from Smt. Rampyari hence thereafter he became the owner. Before said sale, the suit shop was already in the possession of the defendants as tenant on rent Rs. 1,350/- per month for nonresidential purposes and after the sale of the suit shop, they became tenant of the plaintiff.
(ii) The defendant no. 1 is running the business of sale of dry-fruits in the suit shop. That vide notice dated 3.8.1998 the plaintiff gave the information to the defendants about acquiring the ownership of suit shop by him. The defendants accepted the ownership and started paying the rent to the plaintiff. They paid the rent up to 31.3.2003. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy and requested the defendant to handover the vacant possession and to pay the arrears of rent. After termination of the tenancy, the suit for eviction and possession was filed on the ground of bona fide under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961.
(iii) According to the plaintiff, at present he is running the business in the small shop situated in basement of 23, Ramkrishna Bhawan which is insufficient for his business and he or any member of his family are not having any other non-residential accommodation of their ownership in the city of Indore. The area of the basement shop is only 11 x 8 = 88 Sq. ft., and because of which he is running his business with great difficulty and for expansion of his business, he is in bona fide need of the suit shop as it is measuring 320 Sq. ft. and situated at ground floor.
3. According to the plaintiff, despite receipt of notice, defendants did not pay the rent w.e.f. 31.3.2003, hence he filed the suit seeking a decree of eviction under section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act of 1961. By way of amendment, the plaintiff made a pleading in the plaint that his brother used to do the business for years together in the name of "Samta Fruits" and now the name has been changed to "Gyanesh Fruits" The plaintiff is not having any business either in the name "Samta Fruits" or in the name of "Gyanesh Fruits". He is only running his business in the premises at 23, Krishna Bhawan, Siyaganj, Indore. The plaintiff has made a special pleading by way of amendment that after the death of his father, house No. 390 (new No. 491) came into the share of Smt. Jalnadevi W/o. Jambu Kumar by way of Will dated 12.4.2010 and House No. 391 (new No. 491), Jawahar Marg, Indore came into the share of Manjuladevi Jain, therefore, he is not having any alternative and suitable accommodation in Indore city for his business except the suit shop.
4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement independently refuting the averments made in the plaint. By way of special pleading, it was submitted that the plaintiff is one of the member of joint business his father - Samrathmal an
