MOHD. ISMAIL versus DINKAR VINAYAKRAO DORLIKAR

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 28-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 542 
A 
MOHD. ISMAIL 
v. 
-~ 
DINKAR VINAYAKRAO DORLIKAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 7206 of 2009) 
B 
OCTOBER 28, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction - Eviction petition on the 
ground of bonafide requirement - Order of eviction without 
,r 
c considering subsequent events, which negated claim of 
bonafide requirement - On appeal, he/q: Judgment since 
passed without considering subsequent events, matter 
remitted to High Court to decide taking into consideration, the 
same. 
D 
Respondent-landlord filed application for eviction of 
~ 
the tenanted premises, against appellant-tenant on the 
y 
ground of bonafide requirement, stating that he and his 
three sons required two shops for starting business. 
E Rent Controller passed order of eviction and the same 
was upheld in appeal. High court in a writ petition, 
remanded the matter to appellate Court. Despite repeated 
remand (thrice) of the case by the High Court, appellate 
court decided in favour of landlord on the ground of 
F 
bonafide requirement. Against the order of the appellate 
court, High Court in a writ petition held that the landlord 
proved his bonafide requirement. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. After considering the subsequent events 
that had occurred during the eviction proceeding, in 
)... 
which it was brought to the notice of the Court that (1) 
one of his sons had expired (2) second son had 
H 
542 
\ .. 
y 
MOHD. ISMAIL v. DINKAR VINAYAKRAO DORLIKAR 543 
absconded for the last 8-9 years and (3) the tenant had 
A 
constructed two shop rooms where he has been carrying 
on business of Kirana, no order for eviction could be 
passed without considering the aforesaid aspects of the 
matter which was duly brought to the notice of the Court. 
[Para 13] (547-F-G] 
B 
1.2. lnspite of repeated orders of remand passed by 
the High Court as well as admissions made by the 
respondent in his deposition about the fact stated in the 
application for taking into consideration of subsequent C 
events, it would not be possible to accept the impugned 
Judgment of the High Court, which had failed to consider 
the requirement of the respondent after the subsequent 
events had occurred. [Para 14] [547-G-H; 548-A-B] 
2. The case is remanded to the High Court, who in 
D 
turn, would frame issues to the extent whether in view of 
the subsequent events, the bonafide requirement of the 
landlord/respondent has already been satisfied or not. 
The High Court shall direct the Rent Controller, to 
complete the proceedings for taking up the matter, as 
E 
directed. The High Court, after receiving the records along 
with evidence and documents from the Rent Controller, 
and the findings made thereon, shall decide the same 
finally. [Paras 15 and 18] (548-C-D; 549-8-C] 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
7206 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.09.2006 of the High 
·court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition 
No. 5075 of 2005. 
Subhash Chandra Jain (N.P.) for the Appellant. 
Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, for the 
Respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
,. 
544 
' 
·>-
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~-
.i,-
' 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order 
B 
dated 28th of September, 2006 passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur 
Bench in W.P. (c) 5075 of 2005, by which the High Court hao 
dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order of tht? 
Additional Collector, Nagpur dated 22nd of July, 2005, whit;h 
"! 4 
• 
was filed against the. order of the Rent Controller, Nagpur in 
c Revenue Gase No. 264/A-71 (2)/92-93 dated 12th of 
/ 
November, 1999 thereby allowing the application of the 
respondent for grant of permission to issue quit notice under 
Clause -13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. 
0 
3. The case made out by the respondents in his eviction 
( 
.; 
petition may be summarized as follows :-
The appellant is a tenant in respect of a Shop Room 
~ 
measuring about 1 O' x 26' (hereinafter referred to as "the s~op 
E 
in question") under the respondent for the last more than 20 
years at a monthly rental of Rs.600/- payable at the end of each 
English Calendar month. In the application for eviction, the 
respondent had alleged that since he was jobless and had to 
mainta

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