MATTULAL versus RADHELAL

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 23-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR, P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

{ • 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MATTULAL 
v. 
RADHELAL 
April 23, 1974 
(D. G. PALEKAR AND P. N. BHAGWATI, JJ.] 
127 
Madhya Pradesh 
Accon1odation 
Control Act, 1961--Section 
12(1) (f)-
Bona fide requiren1e11t-Proof of. 
High Court-Findings of fact by First Appellate Court-Jurisdiction in 
Second Appeal to interfere with findings of fact. 
Fact, questions of-Mixed questions of fact and law-Madhya 
Pradesh 
Acco1n111odation Control Act, 1961, s. 12(1)(f)-Finding on bona fide require-
ment if question of fact or 1nixed question of law and fact. 
The re:ipondent-Iandlord ha·ving failed in his attempts to recover posses.:;ion 
of the non residential premises from the appellant, entered into a lease deed 
by which he gave a lease of the premises to th: appellant for a period of two 
years. . After the expiry of the period of lease the 
appellant 
continued 
in 
possession as a monthly tenant. Two years after the expiry of the lease period 
the respondent again filed suit for eviction on the ground that the 
bona fide 
required the premises for starting his own busin·~ss as a dealer in iron and steel 
materials, a ground for eviction recognised by s. 12(1) (f) of th"! 
Madhya 
Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 
Th-.e trial ·court granted a decree for 
eviction. The first appellate Court s·et aside the decree for eviction. It came lo 
the Unding that the business of dealer in iron and steel materials which the 
landlord wanted to start was a totally new business for him, that there was no 
evidence to show that the landlord made the necessary preparations from which 
inference could be drawn that he wanted to start -the new business. and that for 
nearly two years, after the expiry of the lease, the landlord did not take any 
steps to tekm1natc the tenancy. 
Therefore, the first Appellate Court held that 
what the evidence showed was mere assertion on the part of the landlord w~1ich 
fell ::;hart ot the proof required. The High Court, in second appeal, held that it 
was established that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. 
Ct pointed 
out that the first App~llate Court had fallen into an error in holding that l!.nles!S 
the re-spondent showed that he had .made prepara-tions for starting the business 
it could not be held that he bona fide required the premises. The High Court 
relied on the objective facts that the reSpondent had ois far back. as 1959 sought 
to recover possession of the premises for the purpose of th:: new business and 
that having discontinued the business he was carrying on and surrendered the 
premises, it was but natural that the 
respondent wanted to start 
this 
new 
business. The High Court thus came to th~ conclusion that the respondent had 
succeeded in establishing that he bona fide required the premises for the purpose 
of starting business as a dealer in iron and steel materials. 
In appeal by Special Le:ive _to this Court it was contended by the appellant-. 
tenant thc.t in reversing th~ findings of the First Appellate Court on the question 
of bofza .fide requirement of the premises by the respondent, the High 
Court 
exceeded its jurisdiction in second appeal; since the finding that the respondent 
did not bona fide require the premises for the purpose of starting his 
o~'n 
business wa~ a finding of fact. it was not open to the High Court to interfere 
with it unless it could be shown that it was vitiated by an error of law. The 
respondent on the other contended that the finding in regard to the question of 
bona fide requirement was a mixed finding of law and fact and the High Court 
was, therefore. entitlecl to examine its correctness. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in second appeal in revers-
ing the decision of the Fir~t Appellate Court and passing a decree for eviction 
against th·o appeJlant. 
[137F] 
( 1) The issues whether the respondent required the shop for the purpose 
of starting new business as a dealer in iron and steel materials, 
and, if 
so, 
whether his requirement was bona fide were both 
questions 
of fact. 
Their 
determination did not involve the aop]ication of legal principles to the facts 
established in the evidence. The findings of the First Apnellate Court on these 
issu:!s were no doubt inferences from other basic facts, but that did not alter 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] l S.C.R. 
the charact~r of these fiJ?-dings and they ren1ained finding'> of fact. 
Therefore, 
A 
the conclusion of the Fust Appe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.