LexFARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI &ANR. versus B.S. SHANKARRAO KOKATE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1130 FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI &ANR. v. B.S. SHANKARRAO KOKATE (D) BY LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.8648 OF 2015) OCTOBER 14, 2015 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Rent control and eviction: Bonafide need ~ Tenanted shop measuring 9. 7 sq. meters -Appel/ants-Landlords seeking eviction of tenanted shop on the ground that they need the shop for their own business - Plea of appellants that they were selling betel 0 nuts and betel leaves in the open on the street and they needed the shop in question which was most suited for their business- Plea of respondent-tenant that the appellants were in joint business with their father and uncle and do not require the suit shop - Held: The properly owner has right to use his E property as he chooses, and if the appellants in the instant case had purchased the suit property, for running their own business, there is no irregularity therein, nor can there be any doubt about their bonafide desire to run the proposed business in the premises, independent of the other family F members - The premises measuring a mere 9. 7 square meters would be most suitable for selling betel-nuts and bate/" leaves - This is the usual size of the shops engaged in such business-Plea of tenant that appellants purchased another properly measuring 105-7 sq. meters during pendency of the G eviction suit and same can be used by them- Said plea not tenable since a retail business of selling betel-nuts, bidi and tobacco etc. cannot be run from a premises as large as the one measuring 105-7 sq. meters and it is unlikely for customers to visit such a large premises for buying betel- H 1130 FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI v. B.S. SHANKARRAO KOKATE 1131 (D) BY LRS. • leaves; betel-nuts and bidis etc. - The suit premises which A measures 9. 7 sq. meters would attract retailers of the trade under reference, as shops .selling betel-leaves and betel-nuts are usually of the size of the suit property - Furthermore, respondent-tenant was running a grocery shop, had a separate business premises wherein he was having a bicycle- B shop and, in addition thereto, he had agricultural lands and also a wine shop in partnership with his wife - Thus, even the comparative hardship would be that of the appellants, as against the respondents - Appellants entitled to eviction decree. C Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The fact, that the instant premises was purchased by the appellants on 06.09.1980 for a total consideration of Rs.10,000/- even though the same was D earning a meager rent of Rs.36/- per month, is indicative of the fact, that the appellants had not purchased the premises for earning rent therefrom, but for the purpose of running a business therein. The assertion made by E the appellants that they wished to sell betel-leaves and related articles in the premises, has not been seriously contested at the hands of the respondents. It was not the case of the respondents that any business activities were being carried out by the appellants independently, F from their father and uncle, when the civil suit was filed. It certainly cannot be the claim at the behest of a tenant, that the owner of a premises must continue in business with his parents or relations, assuming there was a joint business activity, to start with. That is usual, and G happens all the time when children come of age. And thereafter, they must have the choice to run their own life, by earning their own livelihood. The property owner has the right to use his property as he chooses, and if the appellants in the instant case had purchased the suit H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A property, for running their own business, there is no irregularity therein, nor can there be any doubt about their bona fide desire to run the proposed business in the premises, independent of the other family members. The premises measuring a mere 9.7 square meters would B be most suitable for the business proposed by the appellants, namely, for selling betel-nuts and betel- leaves. This is the usual size of the shops engaged in such business. The affidavit placed by the respondents was to the effect that reference therein has been made C to a property adrneasuring 114-2 square meters. This property was purchased by appellants during the pendency of the proceedings arising out of eviction suit. The affidavit itself indicates, that the premises is being 0 used b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.