GOVIND versus DR. JEETSINGH

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 25-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GO VIND 
v. 
DR. JEETSINGH 
NOVEMBER 25, 1987 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
c 
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Sec. 12(1)(a)-Bona 
fide need of landlord-To be judged from objective point-Not merely 
by assertion/denial of parties-Interference by High Court in second 
appeal with findings of fact of first appellate Court-Permissibility of. 
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant 
from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under 
s. 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The appel-
lant-tenant contended that the respondent-landlord was already in 
occupation of accommodation sufficient to meet his requirement and 
D that the suit was filed in order to extract higher rent. The trial court 
decreed the suit. 
E 
The first appellate court, applying the tests which appeared to it 
to be objective, found that the need in respect of suit accommodation 
was not a bonafide one and allowed the appeal of the appellant-tenant. 
•· 
In second appeal by the respondent-landlord, the High Court 
held that the first appellate court had drawn wrong inferences, that 
there was no proper appreciation of facts and that all the facts had not 
been borne in mind. It allowed the appeal, restored the order of the J
trial cou~t and ordered eviction. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: The need of the landlord must be reasonable and must 
be bona fide in order to evict the tenant on the relevant provisions of 
the various Acts. Whether in a particular situation the need was 
G reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point, 
not merely by 11ssertion or denial of the parties. [46E-F) 
In second appeal, the scope of interference by the High Court is 
limited. [47 Al 
H 
Mattulalv. Radhe Lal, [1975] 1S.C.R.127, relied on. 
44 
GOVIND v. JEET SINGH [MUKHARJJ, J.I 
45 
In the instant case, prima facie, it might be possible to hold that 
the High Court was in error in interfering with the findings of the first 
appellate court. But in view of the fact that subsequent to the decision 
of the High Court, the first wife of the landlord had died and the 
accommodation which was in heI" occupation has become vacant, and 
taking into cautious consideration the subsequent events, it must be 
held that there was no more bona fide need of the landlord to evict the 
tenant of the premises in question. Order of eviction has, therefore, ttJ 
be set aside. [47F·H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3117 
of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.1983 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Civil Second Appeal No. 166 of 1980. 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, V. Gambhir, S. Sarin and S.K. Gambhir 
for the Appellant. 
1 
T.S. Krishnamurti Iyer and Shakil Ahmad Syed for the Res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 166 of 1980. By the aforesaid 
judgment, the High Court has reversed the . findings of the first 
appellate court. 
The respondent-landlord had filed a suit for eviction in Septem-
ber, 1977, inter alia, under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommo-
dation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') alleging that 
the premises in question was required bona fide for the requirement 
of the landlord. It was stated in the written statement filed by the 
petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord had already in his 
occupatfun sufficient accommodation and the same was sufficient to 
meet his requirement and that the suit was filed in order to extract 
the higher rent. The trial court decreed the suit. 
The appellant went up in appeal. The Additional District 
Judge, lndore which was the first appellate court allowed the appeal 
of the appellant-tenant and set aside the decree passed by the trial 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A court under section 12(1 )( e) of the Act. The first appellate court 
looked into the evidence and came to .the conclusion that the need in 
respect of suit accommodation was not bona fide one. 
It was the case of the landlord that three rooms were in his 
B possession in the ground floor and one tin shed which the landlord 
was formerly using as a Garage for his car but which was no longer 
with him. Landlord was suffering from Harnia and one of the wives 
was also suffering from Asthama. After analysing the evi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.