ARYA SAMAJ, SAGAR & ORS. versus PINJAMAL & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 08-08-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
u 
c 
D 
ARYA SAMAJ, SAGAR & ORS. 
v. 
PINJAMAL & ANR. 
AUGUST 8, 1986 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & K.N. SINGH, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, s. 12(1) 
(/)-Eviction of tenant on ground of requirement by landlord for addi-
'tional accommodation-When arises. 
The landlord-appellant running a girls' school, filed an eviction 
suit against the tenant, the predecessor-in-intetest of the respondent, 
on the ground that it needed additional accommodation for the school. 
The trial Judge as :well as the Appellate Court ordered eviction 
under s. 12(i)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 
1961 holding that the object of the appellant-society was to get the 
building back for expansion of its activities and had proved the same. 
E 
The High Court, however, in second appeal examined the sanc-
tioned plan, held that the landlord's claim for eviction was on the 
ground of reconstruction, and the series of shops shown in the plan 
were meant to be let out to. tenants and set aside the order of eviction 
passed by the two courts below. · 
F 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELO: l(i). The order of the High Court is set aside. The orders 
of the Additional District Judge and the Trial Court are restored with 
the modification that in case any part of the building is used for shop or 
let out as shop, the first option should be given to the respondents and 
G 
that the building must be constructed on the basis of the appended 
sanctioned plan. [517G; El 
l(ii). The High Court fell into error in misconstruing the plan 
Ext. 4 and in holding that the landlord's claim for eviction was on the 
ground of reconstruction. The High Court went on to examine whether 
H 
s. 12(h) of the Act had been complied with. There was no such necessity 
514 
-~ 
ARYA SAMAJ v. PINJAMAL IMUKHARJI, J.J 
515 
in view of the facts as found by the two courts below. In any case, in 
second appeal the High Court should not have interfered with such a 
question of fact. [517B-C] 
2. The case of the landlord-appellant is clearly covered by s. 
A 
12(l)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The 
B 
mere fact that the landlord intended to make alterations in tlie house 
either on account of his sweet will or on account of absolute necessity in 
view of the condition of the house, would not affect the question of his 
requiring the house bona fide and reasonably for his occupation, when 
he had proved his need for occupying the house. [516E-F] 
Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v. Jnderadaman Amratlal Sheth ( 
C 
[1964]8SCRp.1,followed. 
\-·-
\ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2637 
of 1977 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1976 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 223 of 1976. 
Rameshwar Nath for the Appellants. 
Y.K. Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Cmirt was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave 
arising from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 26th October, 1977. The landlord-appellant 
filed. the eviction suit against the tenant, the predecessor in interest of 
the respondents. The appellant runs a girls' school, being covered by 
one of its objects. It needed additional accommodation for the said 
purpose. The building was also in dilapidated condition. The learned 
trial Judge as well as Appellate Court ordered eviction under section 
12 (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The 
respondents were in occupation of an old shed as a tenant in thesaid 
house. 
Section 12 (f) of the aforesaid Act gives tb.e landlord the right to 
evict on the grounds, inter alia, as follows: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
/\ 
13 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986) 3 S.C.R. 
"that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is 
· ~- • 
required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of con-
tinuing or starting his business or that any of his major sons 
or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or of any 
person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and 
that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably 
suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his 
occupation in the city or town concerned." 
Section 12 (g) deals with the situation where the building has 
become unsafe or unfit and the landlord wants the premises for carry-
ing out repairs. Section 12 (h) on the other hand deals with the case 
where the accommodation is required bonafid

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