LexDEENA NATH versus POORAN LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
••• +- ..... ,._ ;;;>. ... ~ -\ ~ ~ DEENA NATH v. POORAN LAL JULY 11, 2001 [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Rent Control & Eviction Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 12(1)(/)- Eviction-Bona fide requirement of landlord-Suit premises is one of the five shops owned by landlord-One vacant shop room in occupation of landlord at the time of filing of suit-Pending proceedings one more shop room was vacated-Trial Court-Decreed the eviction suit-Affirmed by Appellate Court-Second appeal-High Court holding that sufficient alternative accommodation was available with the landlord. Setting aside concurrent findings of Courts below-Justification of- Held, Court is duty bound to examine not merely the requirement of landlord, but also availability of other alternative accommodation in the occupation of landlord-On facts and circumstances of the case, bona fide requirement of landlord, not established-Thus, High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below-Constitution of India, 1950 Articles-226 and 136. Civil Procedure Code, /908-S.100-Inte1ference by High Court- Scope of-Eviction suit-Bonafide requirement-Concurrent findings by courts belOl~et aside by High Court-Validity of-Held, if courts below have not A B c D E )- applied the statutory provisions in proper perspective, then finding ofbonafide F requirement would not be a mere finding of fact as such finding would vitiate the judgment-High Court would be justified in upsetting such findings. Appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit against respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonajide requirement under sections 12(1)(a) & (t) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, G 1961. Trial Court while rejecting eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of landlord. Respondent-tenant unsucessfully filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. However, on second appeal, High Court rejected the plea of bonafide requirement of landlord on the ground that reasonable alternative H 925 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. A accommodation was available and set aside the concurrent findings of Courts below. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the appellant-landlord, it was contended that High Court committed an error in interfering with the concurrent findings of Courts ~- ... below holding that the plaintiff had not successfully established his bonajide B requirement for the non-residential accommodation; that the judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable in view of the limited jurisdiction vested under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ~ C HELD: 1.1. The requirement of appellant-landlord cannot be termed to be a bonajide requirement under Section 12(l)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Thus, High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the same does not warrant any interference. 1933-D) D 1.2. S.12(l)(f) of the Act provides that there must be first a requirement by the landlord and such requirement must be bonajide which means that it is not mere whim or desire. The 'bonajide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably E suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pres.sing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the F requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. 1931-G-H; 932-A-BJ 1.3. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has_ to bear in mind G the statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(l)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.