MOHINDER PRASAD JAIN versus MANOHAR LAL JAIN

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
' 
MOH!NDER PRASAD JAIN 
A 
v. 
MANOHAR LAL JAIN 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAM, JJ.] 
B 
,.\ 
Rent and Eviction: 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; Section I 3: c 
Eviction Petition-Non-residential premiseslshop-Bonajide requirement-
Non-joinder of co-owners in eviction proceeding-Effect of-Held: A suit 
filed by a co-owner maintainable in law-Petitioner-co-owner need not to 
show that consent of other co-owners obtained theret~ince provisions of 
law not allowing eviction on bonafide requirement of a non-residential premises 
held ttJ be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the landlord could seek D 
eviction of the premises in question on the ground of bonafide requirement-
---\ 
Besides, landlord/c~wner had proved his bonafide requirement to evict the 
' 
tenant from the premises/shop in question, the findings of fact arrived at by 
the Court below need not be disturbed 
Respondent, one of the co-owners, filed a petition under Section 13 E 
of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for 
eviction of the appellant-tenant from a shop/premises in question on the 
ground of his bona fide personal requir~ment, i.e., for the purpose of 
running wholesale business in· Ayurvedic medicines. The petition was 
dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that the bona fide requirement· F 
of the respondent in respect of the non-residential premises has not been 
proved and moreover he had not been able to show that the consent of 
other co-owners obtained favouring eviction of the premises. An appeal 
preferred thereagainst was allowed by the Appellate Authority on a finding 
that the petitioner had proved his bona fide requirement. The Revision G 
Petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by the High Court holding that 
the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the non-
; 
. residential premises. Hence the present appeal. 
~ 
Appellant-tenant.contended whereas a clear finding of fact was 
arrived at by the Rent Controller that the respondent had failed to prove 
513 
H 
t 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 2 S.C.R. 
A his bona fide requirement in relation to the premhes in question in view 
of the fact that other co-owners did not ghe their consent for starting a 
' 
business in the said shop, the Appellate Authority Jid not delve deep into 
the.matter. 
"' 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. This Court in the case of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of 
Punjab & Anr., (19961 1 SCC 1 held the e:dsting provision on bonafide 
requirement of non-residential premises to be unconstitutional. Later, 
upholding the ratio in the case of Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh 
.. 
c Sethi & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 504, this Court held that a landlord under the 
Act can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the 
ground of bonafide requirement. 1516-D-EI 
Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi & Ors., (20051 8 SCC 504 
and Harbi/as Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab & Anr., (1996] 1 SCC 1, relied 
D on. 
Gian Devi Anandv. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 683, referred 
to. 
,.. 
' 
1.2. A suit filed by a co-owner is maintainable in law. It is not 
E necessary for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction 
'. 
proceeding before the Rent Controller that he hllld taken consent of the 
other co-owners. However, in the event, a co-owner objects thereto, the 
same may be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought 
on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had objected to 
F eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent. (518-D-E) 
India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwal/a 
;-
(Dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwal/a (Smt.) & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 178, relied 
on. 
G 
1.3. The submission of the appellant to the effect that before initiating 
the proceedings, respondent was required to show that he had experience 
in running the business in Ayurvedic medicine is rejected. There is no law 
....
which provides for such a pre-condition. It may be so where a licence is 
required for running a business, a statute may prescribe certain 
, 
r 
' 
qualifications or pre-conditions without fulfilment whereof the landlord 
H may not be able to start a business, but for running a wholesale business 
\ r 
MOHINDER PRASAD JAIN v. MANOHAR LAL JAIN [SINHA, J.) 515 
"'" 
in Ayurvedic medicine, no qualification is prescribed. Experience in the A 
business is not a pre-condition under any st

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