1985 Supreme(MP) 238

R. K. Vijywargiya, J.
Noor Mohammad v. Murlidhar.
S. A. No. 207 of 1982 (I); Decided on 2-4-1985.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908-S. 100-finding based on irrelevant considerations is vitiated

       

        (2) Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (M.P.)-S. 12 (1) (f)d`requirement of shop situated on main road for starting new business-shop situated in street cannot be deemed to be an alternative accommodation.

       

        This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :-

        "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate Court committed an error of law in dismissing the suit for eviction on the ground that the plaintiff bas an alternative accommodation available to him for starting his business.?"

        Held: The plaintiff stated that he requires the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of Mohammad Iqbal because it is situate on the main road and the shops in house No. 65 Kabutarkhana are situate on a side street and Mohammad Iqbal cannot start his business in those shops.

       

        The plaintiff in his statement also offered to the defendant that he may shift to the shop vacated by Lukman and that be would charge him rent less than what he was paying for the tenanted accommodation. The defendant in his statement refused to accept the said offer of the plaintiff.

       

        Now it has emerged in evidence that the house No. 65 Kabutarkhana is situate on a side street and the tenanted accommodation is situate on a maid road. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the house in Kabutarkhana is also situate on a road which is 28 in width. However. the width of the road is not decisive of the fact whether the accommodation situate on that road is equally suitable as compared to the tenanted accommodation situate on the main road. If the plaintiffs son wants to start a new business. he would naturally like to start it at a prominent place and not at a place situate on a side street. If the plaintiff wants to start the business of his son in the tenanted accommodation in preference to the accommodation situate in Kabutarkhana on the ground that the tenanted accommodation which is situate on the main road is more suitable for starting the business of his son. the plaintiffs option cannot be held to be unreasonable.

       

        The defendant is carrying on a flour mill in the tenanted accommodation. He rejected the offer made by the plaintiff to shift his business in the Kabutarkhana shop. obviously for the reasons that shop is situate in a side street. The defendant has not given any reason why he has not accepted the offer given by the plaintiff.

       

        The learned counsel for the respondent laid stress on the testimony of Murlidhar (P. W. 3) and contended that the lathe machine business can be carried on at any place. This business is being carried on in certain localities named by him and further stated that can be carried on at any place meaning thereby at any locality. However. whether one particular place as compared to another place is more suitable for starting the lathe machine business has not been stated by Murlidhar.

       

        Kabutarkhana shop is situate at a distance of 200 yards from the tenanted accommodation. The defendants witnesses Laxmikant and Nandkrishore also admitted that the tenanted accommodation is situate on a main road and the Kabutarkhana shop is situate on a side street.

       

        Thus, on the evidence on record it is quite clear that the tenanted accommodation is situate on a mal n road and it is more suitable for starting the business of the plaintiffs son Mohammad Iqbal as compared to the shops situate at Kabutarkhana. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs requirement of the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of his son Mohammad Iqbal can not be negative on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation in the house situate at Kabutarkhana.

       

        The appellate Court committed a patent error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff required the tenanted accommodation for starting the lath machine business of his son Mohammad Iqbal and he has no other suitable accommodation of his own available to him for that purpose in the city of Indore, and the finding recorded by the appellate Court is vitiated being based on irrelevant considerations. Appeal allowed.