MEHMOODA GULSHAN versus JAVAID HUSSAIN MUNGLOO

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 17-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(2017] l S.C.R. 692 
MEHMOODA GULSHAN 
v. 
JAVAID HUSSAIN MUNGLOO 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1398-1399of2011) 
rEBRUARY17,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act. 1966 -
s. 11 (J)(h) - Eviction - Requirement of landlord for own 
.occupation - It could mean occupation by member of a family - On 
facts, eviction petition by landlord seeking tenanted premises for 
his son - Trial court allowed the petition holding the need for 
premises as genuine, however High Court held the requirement of 
own occupation not est~blished for non-examination of the son, 
for whose benefit, eviction was sought - Held: Requirement of 
landlord for own occupation could mean occupation by member of 
a family - Mere non-examination of family member who intends to 
do business cannot be taken as a ground/or repelling the reasonable 
requirement of the landlord - Son, being unemployed and 
undereducated, landlord able to establish that business was the 
available option and tenanted premises was the only space 
available - Thus, genuine need for the premises established -
Landlord having established reasonable requirement of tenanted 
premises for own occupation, order passed by the trial court restored, 
and that of the High Court set aside. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It has clearly come in evidence of the appellant 
that her one son is unemployed and in view of unemployment, he 
was frustrated. The appellant's husba1;d had contracted second 
a 
marriage and he had deserted the appellant. The appellant herself 
was unemployed with no source of income. The appellant, hence, 
prayed that the property be returned to her so that her son can 
look after the family. In cross-examination, she denied the 
. suggestion that the son was doing business with his father. It had 
also been stated further that "except the premises and the 
H 
692 
MEHMOODA GULSHAN v. JAVAID HUSSAIN MUNGLOO 
residential house, the plaintiff has uo other property". The trial 
court· meticulously analyzed and appreciated the reasonable 
requirement of the premises for the business to be managed by 
the son of the appellant especially in her peculiar family 
circumstances. The. trial court appreciated the evidence in the 
right perspective and held tba·t it is not mere desire but genuine 
need. The finding of the trial court was challenged mainly on the 
ground that the son, for whose benefit the eviction is sought, Was 
not examined. The main ground on which the appellant was non-
suited in the first appeal and the intra-court appeal is that the 
appella~t failed to establish her reasonable requirement for own 
occupation. [Paras 12, 13] [700-E-ll; 701-A] 
1.2 Mere non-examination of the family member who 
intends to do the business cannot be taken as a ground for 
repelling the reasonable requirement of the landlord. The question 
whether there is a reasonable requirement by the landlord of the 
premises, would depend on .whether the landlord has been able 
to establish a ·genuine element of need for the premises. What is 
a genuine need would depend on the facts and circumstances of 
each case. Merely because the landlord has not examined the 
member of the family who intends to do business in the premises, 
he caunot be non-suited in case he has otherwise established a 
genuine need. The need is a matter of appreciation of evidence, 
and once there is· no perversity in the appreciation of evidence 
on the need, the said finding of fact cannot be reopened. The 
eviction is not sought on the last limb of section ll(l)(h) of the 
Act namely, "for the occupation of any person for whose benefit 
the house or shop is held". The premises sought to be evicted is 
not held for the benefit of the son alone; but the whole family. It 
is for the own occupation of the landlord. It has been established 
in the facts of this case that the landlord was not happy and content 
with the paltry rent received from the premises. The landlord 
intended to· engage her son in the business at the premises. It is 
for the landlord to decide as to the best use the premises should 
be put to. There is nothing wrong on the part of a landlord in 
making plans for .a· better living by doing business engaging her 
son. Having regard to the background of the son who is 
unempIQyed and u·nde·reducated, the appellant was able to 
establish that business was the available option and the tenanted 

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