CHANAN LAL AND ORS. versus SMT. AZIZUNISHA

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 20-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

------
~ 
CHANAN LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. AZIZUNISHA 
APRIL 20, 1990 
A 
[T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND R.M. SARAI, JJ.] 
8 
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: S. 12(1)(f)-Bonafide 
'_f' 
requirement-Co"Jparative hardship of landlady-High Court ordering 
eviction-Interference declined. 
.....,. .. 
The respondent landlady sought eviction of the appellant under s . 
12(1)(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground of 
bona fide requir,,ment for continuing tailoring business of her son, 
being carried on in a small room of the same premises. The trial court 
accepted the claim. The appellate court, however, allowed the appeal 
on the ground that the business of the landlady's son was very poor and 
not growing at all and, therefore, the accommodation in his possession 
was not at all insufficient. The High Court found that the need of the 
landlady was genuine and bona fide. 
Dismissing the tenant's appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The landlady whOse husband at one time had a flourishing 
business was now in dire circumstances. To keep both the ends meet the 
family depended not only on meagre income from rent and tailoring 
shop but the landlady had even to part with possession of another room 
of the same house adjacent to the shop in dispute to another tenant. 
Financial difficulty apart, the tenant admittedly had two shops each 
with spacious accommodation facing the road while the landlady's son 
had one with comparatively small and irregular dimension in a lane in 
most unhygienic conditions, with not enough place for 3 or 4 machines 
with two or three helpers, what to say of trial room or other facilities for 
customers. The pathetic and pitiable condition of the landlady with no 
injury to the tenant except that be shall be required to carry on business 
from one shop only, do not call for interference with the order of the 
High Conrt. [569A-EJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3488 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7 .1988 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 17 of 1985. 
.567 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher and Atul Nanda for 
A the Appellants. 
B 
Pramod Swarup for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SABAi, J. This tenant's appeal is directed against order 
passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in proceepings arising out of 
Section 12( l)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 
In _1976, the landlady filed an application for eviction under Sec-
tion 12( l)(f) of the Act as the accommodation in occupation of appel-
C !ant was required bona fide for continuing tailoring business of her 
son who was doing it since 1970 in a small room of the same premises 
in the lane which was both unsuitable and inadequate. Her claim was 
accepted by the Trial Court as necessity was valid and the landlady had 
a right to reside in any part of the house. In appeal various objections 
D raised on behalf of tenant, namely, feasibility of shifting business to 
one more room in the house or that additional accommodation was 
available were repelled . .Jt was further found that landlady's husband 
had a flourishing tailoring business during British days but it suffered 
setback and he later became blind. The appeal was, however, allowed 
and the application was dismissed as in opinion of Appellate Court the 
E Trial Court had incorrectly understood the dimension of the shop. It 
did not find any merit in the submission that the shop was irregularly 
built and was unsuitable for doing business. After discussing the evi-
dence it found that the business of landlady's son was very poor and 
not growing at all. Therefore, the accommodation in his possession 
was not at all insufficient and unsuitabi,lity was also not proved. In 
F Second Appeal by the landlady the High _Court did not agree with the 
Appellate Court and found that the need of the landlady was genuine 
and bona fide as the shop in dispute was not sufficient for four 
machines and two or three servants. 
Principal attack was on jurisdiction of High Court to interfere 
G wllh finding of fact in second appeal. Defence -was equally vehement. 
But it appears unnecessary to examine it as out ot various aspects 
highlighted one was sufficiency of accommodation with tenant even if 
he vacated the shop in dispute. Since it was ncit clear from order of any 
Court time was granted on conclusion of argument to learned counsel 

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