AKHILESHWAR KUMAR AND ORS. versus MUSTAQIM AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 12-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MUSTAQIM AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2002 
[R. C. LAHOTI AND BRJJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1882-Sections 
11 (J)(c) and 14(8) -Eviction petitiorr-On ground ofbonafide requirement- C 
Decree in favour of landlord-However, High Court holding that requirement 
pleaded by landlord not genuine, setting aside the decree-On appeal, Held: 
Trial Court took into consideration relevant circumstances and available 
evidence-Thus the finding could not be upset by High Court in revisional 
jurisdiction. 
D 
Appellants, educated unemployed, purchased suit premises for 
satisfying the requirement of appellant No.I of running business. The suit 
premises were let out to respondent by appellant's predecessor in title. 
Appellants filed eviction petition.against respondent-tenant under Section 
ll(l)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, E 
1882. Trial Court passed partial eviction decree. Respondent-tenant filed 
revision. High Court allowed the revision and set aside the decree holding 
that appellants were engaged in supporting their father in his business 
carried on in another premises and also that there are two other shops 
available to appellants. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The approach adopted by High Court cannot be 
countenanced and has occasioned a failure of justice. Its observation that 
F 
the requirement pleaded by appellants falls short of felt need and is merely G 
a desire is unsustainable. Judgment of trial Court is a detailed and 
exhaustive judgment which has taken into consideration each and every 
availab~e piece of evidence and relevant circumstances assessed with 
objectivity, consistently with the relevant principles of law and hence the 
finding is one which could not have been upset by High Court in exercise 
57 
H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A of its revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the manner in which Court has 
proceeded to form an opinion at variance with the findings of trial Court 
is wholly unsustainable. 160-B; 61-B-CJ 
1.2. There is overwhelming evidence available to show that appellant 
No.I is sitting idle, without any adequate commercial activity available to 
B him so as to gainfully employ him. Appellant No.I is provisionally assisting 
his father in their family business which does not mean that he should 
never start his own independent business. High Court overlooked the 
evidence to the effect, relied on by trial Court too, that son-in-law of 
appellant No.I's father was assisting the latter in his business and there 
C was little tert to be done by his sons. 160-B-DI 
1.3. Once it has been proved by a landlord that the suit 
accommodation is required bona fide by him for his own purpose and such 
satisfaction withstands the test of objective assessment by the Court of facts 
then choosing of the accommodation which would be reasonable to satisfy 
D such requirement has to be left to the subjective choice of the needy. Court 
cannot thrust upon its own choice on the needy. The choice has to be 
exercised reasonably and not whimsically. The alternative accommodation 
which prevailed with High Court are either not available to appellant no. I 
or not suitable in all respects as the suit accommodation is. Approach of 
High Court that an accommodation got vacated to satisfy the need of 
E appellant No.2, who too is an educated unemployed, should be diverted 
or can be considered as relevant alternative accommodation to satisfy the 
requirement of appellant No.I, another educated unemployed brother, 
cannot be countenanced. So also considering a shop situated over a septic 
tank and inaccessible on account of a ditch in front of the shop and hence 
F lying vacant cannot be considered a suitable alternative to the suit shop 
which is situated in a marketing complex, is easily accessible and has been 
purchased by appellants to satisfy the felt need of one of them. 
(60-F-H;61-AI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3226 of 
G 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.1998 of the Patna High 
Court in C.R. No. 449 of 199i. 
S.B. Sanyal, Ms. Manila Verma, Devashish Bharuka and Ranjan 
H Mukherjee, for the Appellants. 
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR v. MUSTAQIM (R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 
59 
Sujit K. Singh, Tathagat H. Vatdhan and Shashi B. Upadhyay, for A 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.