Pratap Chand Jain vs Ashok Kumar - 1992 Supreme(MP) 945

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Lahoti
For the Respondent: N.P. Mittal

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 12 (1) (e) – parents and younger brother members of joint family – accommodation may be got vacated for their need.
       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 12 (1) (e) – word 'bona – fide' means 'honestly' or in 'good faith' – finding of bona – fide requirement – is a finding of fact.
       (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 12 (1) (e) – tenant – cannot expect from his landlord that the family of landlord should be squeezed and live uncomfortably.
        Short Note
       1. The impugned judgment and decree is assailed by the appellant in this Court on 3 counts. Firstly it is contended that the plaintiff's suit could not be decreed as he owns alternative accommodation in the town, secondly, in view of the requirements of section 12 (1) (e) of the Act read with the definition of 'member of the family' under section 2 (e), the suit accommodation could not be ordered to be vacated for the alleged need of the brother and the parents of the plaintiff/respondent and thirdly it is urged that even if there was any need, it has been satisfied, as during the pendency of the suit, a portion in the house was vacated by other tenant and came to the possession of Anil Kumar, for whose need the suit was filed and, therefore, it is submitted that on all the three counts, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
       Held : I have considered the contentions raised by both the parties. The scope of this Court is a limited one being circumscribed by section 100 of C.P.C., yet on the consideration of first argument, I do not find any evidence on record to even suggest that the plaintiff has any other accommodation available in the town of Guna, as alleged by the defendant/appellant. The two Courts below in this regard have turned down such an argument, since there was absolutely no base available to the appellant/defendant to take such a stand.
       2. Clause (e) of section 2 has categorised such persons, qualifying that they ought to be living jointly with the plaintiff. It was only for the other relations not falling within that category that their dependency was required.
       3. It was averred in the plaint and evidence was led to prove that the plaintiff himself, his parents and the younger brother are the members of the joint family. It also came on record that the petitioner had to come out of the Chanderi town having joined the service. His post is transferable. His parents are aged and his father who was earlier dealing in pure ghee business has closed that business due to the ailing health. His younger brother is making efforts to settle at Guna and in the old age, the parents cannot be left by the petitioner at Chanderi unsupported and unattended. For that reason, the suit accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiff. It is to accommodate his younger brother with his family and the parents.
       4. The word 'bona fide', appearing in section 12 (1) (e) speaks of the state of mind which means 'honestly' or in "good faith'. The plaintiff has not only to establish the 'requirement' of accommodation for 'the member of his family' but also that such requirement is 'bona fide. Any finding to this effect would be the 'finding of fact', not open for interference in second appeal, unless the finding was illegal or perverse, as was observed by the Apex Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, 1975 JLJ 1.
       5. The next crucial objection raised by Shri K.K. Lahoti, counsel for the appellant, is to the effect of the plaintiff's acquiring some accommodation during the pendency of appeal which satisfied the alleged need and calls for setting aside the judgment and decree of eviction. The suit accommodation required by plaintiff, consists of 4(four) rooms. He and his witnesses have admitted the event of 2 (two) rooms having been occupied by Anil Kumar during the pendency of the suit and their user as living room and kitchen. Anil Kumar, the brother of plaintiff, has his wife and children. Even Anil Kumar cannot be said to be comfortably living in one room, whereas the parents have also to live in there. It is the landlord's right to live comfortably and/or keep the members of his family in a comfortable state.
       6. It would wholly be illegal and unreasonable for a tenant to expect from the landlord or the members of his family to squeeze themselves and to live uncomfortably than to seek his eviction. Although, such need should not be arbitrary or unreasonable else, it would not be bona fide. But the two Courts below have, rightly in view of this Court, found on evidence, the circumstances that the plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of the appellant from the suit portion for the residential need of his parents and the brother and that the need is not satisfied nor its rigour is reduced. The finding of the two Courts below in this regard is concurrent and is a finding or fact. 1975 JLJ 1 (SC) followed. Appeal dismissed.