LexDINESH KUMAR versus YUSUF ALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 7 S.CR. 222 DINESH KUMAR v. YUSUF ALI (Civil Appeal No. 4244 of 2006) MAY 26, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - s. 12(1)(f) - Bonafide requirement for non-residential purpose - Suit for C eviction - Allowed by trial court - Set aside by first appellate court - In second appeal, order of eviction upheld by High Court holding that the findings recorded by first appellate court perverse - On appeal, held: Landlord is the best judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and need may not 1 D · be a pretext to evict tenant only for increasing rent - High · Court can entertain second appeal and re-appreciate evidence, if finding of fact recorded by court below is found to be perverse - On facts, order of High Court justified but it did not consider as to what would be the magnitude of E business - In the interest of justice, landlord to recover possession of half of the area of the premises - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 - Second appeal - Maintainability of - Held: Is maintainable on a substantial F question of law and not on facts - However, if court comes to the conclusion that evidence recorded by courts below are perverse, appeal can be entertained, and it is permissible for the court to re-appreciate the evidence. G The respondent-landlord owned a shop measuring 152 sq.ft. It was situated at a main road in the market. In year 1978, the respondent let out the said premises to the appellant-tenant for a non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The rent was enhanced from H 222 DINESH KUMAR v. YUSUF ALI 223 time to time. The respondent took certain loan from the A appellant and part of it was to be adjusted towards the monthly rent. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on the grounds of nuisance and bone fide requirement for himself. He submitted that he was carrying his business in a rented s 'Gumti' measuring 3 .ft. x 4 ft. at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -; and that the said 'Gumti' is situated on the Nalla in Cantonment Board establishe~ by encroaching upon the public !and. The trial court a.llowed the suit for eviction under section 12(1 )(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control c Act, 1961 on the ground of bona fide need. The first appellate court set aside the order. The respondent filed a second appeal. The High Court allowed the same. Hence the appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Second Appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence. The High Court should not entertain a second appeal unless it raises a substantial question of law. It is the obligation on the Court of law to further the clear intendment of the Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same. There may be a question, which may be a "question of fact", "question of law", "mixed question of fact and law" and "substantial question of law." Question means anything inquired; an issue to be decided. The "question of fact" is whether a particular factual situation exists or not. [Paras 12 and 14) [231-F-G; 232-B] D E F 1.2. The Second Appeal u/s. 100 CPC is maintainable G basically on a substantial question of law and not on facts. However, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict. the tenant only for increasing the rent. B [Para 25] (235-C-D] Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2730; Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E. V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil & ors. AIR 1994 SC 678; Reserve Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Ramakrishna Govind Morey C AIR 1976 SC 830.; Ku/want Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1273; Sheet Chand Vs. Prakash Chand AIR 1998 SC 3063; Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji Vs. Mahadev Channabasappa & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2108; Jai Singh Vs. Shakuntala AIR 2002 SC D 1428; P. Chandrasekharan & Ors. Vs. S. Kanakarajan & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 2306; Shakuntala C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.