LexFIRM PANJUMAL DAULATRAM versus SAKHI GOPAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( FIRM PANJUMAL DAULATRAM v. SAKHI GOPAL May 3, 1977 767 [V, R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J Mudhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 S. 12(l)(e) & (f)- A ' Scope of-Bona fide requiren1ent-Requireme11t of the land-lord of ai:C01111no- t1ation of both residential and 11011-residential part of the building, if proved entitled eviction of the tenant. Under sub clauses (e) and (f) of S. 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accom- modation Control Act, 1961, a landlord can evict a tenant, if the residential and the non-residential accommodation respectively let out to the latter is C required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence and for the purpose of continuing or starting his business. Accommodation unP.er the Act _means any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residentiu·l. The appellant·tenant was inducted in by the respondent in 1955 for the dual purposes of residential and non·residential purpose of running a cloth shop. ~fhe landlord, bona fide required the building for his residence and also for starting bis business of running a Chemist shop. The Eviction Suit filed by him was dismissed by the trial court, but the appellant and the High Court D, granted him the eviction decree. Discussing the appeal by special leave, the Court. HELD : The residential portion as well as a non·residential portion are parts of the building and each is an accommodation by definition. The land· lord is entitled to eviction of the "accommodation" if he makes out a bona fide residential and non·residential requirement of the portions. In the instant case the contract was integral but had dual purpose. The landlord has put i' forward dual requirements which neatly fit into S. 12 (I) (e) and (f) of the J\iadhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The findings of th~ -t. ;:;,ppellate Court regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord, not having been challenged in the High Court and in this Court in the memorandum· of Appeal, the consequence viz. eviction is inevitable. [769 E·G] ' S. Sanyal v. Gianchand (1968] I S.C.R. 536, distinguished. lThe Court, however granted time to the appellants for vacating the build· F ing till 1-1-1978, in terms of equity]. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 991/76. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 21.1.1976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 415 of 1971) S. Choudhury, D. N. Mishra, 0. C. Mathur and Shri Narain for the appellant. G. L. Sanghi, V. K. Sanghi, R. K. Sanghi and S. S. Khanduja for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. A suit for eviction of an accommodation from the tenant to whom it had been let for residential and non-residential G H A B c D E F G 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 3 s.c.R. purposes resulted in dismissal by the! trial Judge. But in an appeal, the final court of fact took the view that the landlord (respondent) was entitled to eviction. The tenant challenged the appellate decree before the' High Court in Second Appeal without success and has therefore come up to this Court with this appeal by special leave. A short point has been raised which deserves only a short ans- wer. Since we agree with the Hi~ Court which in tum has agreed with the first appellate court, ,our judgment can afford to be brief, A statement of necessary facts may now be given. The landlord had let out the premises, which is a storeyed building, to be tenant as per Ex. P-1 of 1955. The significant clause irt the lease deed runs thus : "1 xxx 2. I take your house for "my own use i.e. for opening a cloth shop and for residential purposes and I will net sub- let your house to anybody. xxx xxx xxx xxx." The tenant has thus put the building to business and residential pur- poses. The landlord, who is an M. Sc., claimed the building back on the scorn that he wanted to run a medical store on the ground floor---a non-residential purpose---and sta:ron the first floor with his wife-a residential purpose. Thus the acommodation was let out for dual purposes, was being used presumably for these requirements and was being claimed back by the landlord for the twin purposes mentioned above. The final court of fact has held that the landlord needs the building for his chemist's shop and for his residential use. The High Court in Second Appeal has upheld this f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.