LexPRATAP RAI TANWANI AND ANR. versus UTTAM CHAND AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' -.t - PRAT AP RAI TANW ANI AND ANR. v. UTTAM CHAND AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction : A B MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Sections 12(1)(j) & 17- C Eviction suit-Bona fide need of premises-Suit decreed-Affirmed by First Appellate Court-Second appeal-During its pendency landlord's son completing studies and going abroad-But High Court held that the bona fide need continued to subsist-On appeal, Held: Bonafide need did not eclipse merely because certain developments occurred pendente lite-Delivery of possession to landlord-Time extended-However, protection available to D tenant under Section I 7 of the Act in case of non-user of premises by landlord for purpose for which eviction was sought for. Landlord filed suit for eviction under the M.P. Accomodation Control Act, 1961 inter alia on ground of bonafide requirement. Trial E Court found the need to be genuine and decreed the suit. First Appellate Court affirmed the same. In second appeal, the Appellant-tenants pleaded that during pendency of the matter, son of Respondent-landlord had acquired a decree in Engineering and settled in USA with no chance of coming back to India and therefore, the alleged bonafide need and requirement had become non-existent. High Court, however found that F requirement o.f Section 12(1)(t) was fully complied with and in view of concurrent findings that there was bona fide need of the premises, dismissed the second appeal. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that on the facts of the G case High Court lightly set aside the subsequent events and erroneously came to the conclusion that the need subsisted. Respondents however contended that a person for whose bona.fide need the premises are required, cannot just remain idle in anticipation of getting the premises for starting business; that as there was delay in H ' 197 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A disposal of the matter, the son of landlord completed his Engineering studies and took temporary employment with visa for limited period but intended to come back to India as soon as the premises were available to start the business and that in any event, if there was non-user of the premises for the purpose for which eviction was sought for, the tenant B had protection in terms of section 17 of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant C from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent' developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, nonetheless the need would remain intact. It is pernicious and unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eye of his reaching the finale after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation merely on ground that certain D developments occurred pendente Ute because t~«~ opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period. (201-C, DJ E Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001] 2 SCC 604, relied on. Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, (1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 623, referred to. 1.2. What the Appellants have highlighted as subsequent events fall within the realm of possibility or probability of non-return but a certainty is necessary to be established to show that the need has been eclipsed. (204-D] F 2. The Appellate Court is required to examine, evaluate and ·adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect, which has been done in the instant case. In the background of the factual position, it is clear that the High Court had considered the subsequent events which the Appellants highlighted and then held that the bona fide need continues G to subsist. (204-D, C] Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, (1981] 3 SCC 103, relied on. Ram Dass v. Jshwar Chander, (1988] 3 SCC 131; Gulabbai v. Na/in Narsi Vohra, [1991] 3 SCC 483; Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan, [1979) H 1 SCC 273; Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, [1999) 6 SCC ... P.R. TANWANI v. UTTAM CHAND [PASAYAT, J.] 199 222 and Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, (2003) 2 sec 3, referred to. A 3. Considering the fact that the tenants are occupying the premises for nearly two decades, the time granted by the High Court to the Appellant to vacate the premises is extended till the end of 2005 sub
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.