PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA versus HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA 
A 
v. 
HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI 
AUGUST 4, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
RENT CONTROL & EVICTION: 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Sections 12 (/) 
(e) & (f)-Bonafide requirement-Eviction petition filed by landlord to start C 
business for unemployed son-Trial Court did not order eviction-First 
Appellate Court evicted tenant as it found the ground substantiated-High 
Court held, all ingredients of bonafide requirement not proved and presence 
of alternative accommodation was suppressed by landlord-On appeal held, 
all requirements fulfilled-Presence of alternative residential accommodation D 
distinct from non-residential accommodation-No obligation on the part of 
landlord to state presence of alternative residential accommodation and 
prove it is not suitable for non-residential purposes. 
The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of two 
shops. The appellant landlord filed two suits in the Court of Civil Judge, E 
against the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground 
of bonajide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing a business, 
stating that he had no alternate and reasonably suitable non-residential 
accommodation in the city. The trial Judge concluded that the appellant failed 
to prove his bonafide requirement and observed that he had only a desire to F 
establish the business for his son. 
The appellant filed appeals in the Court of District Judge, which held 
that the appellant had proved bonafide requirement and allowed the appeals. 
The respondent filed Second Appeal before the High Court which after 
framing the question of law concluded that the ~ppellant failed to prove all G 
the ingredients of Section 12 (1) (t) of the Madhya 'Fradesh Accommodation 
Control Act, 1961 and his claim that he bonafide required the suit premises, 
cannot be sustained as he suppressed the fact that he was in possession of 
an alternative vacant accommodation, and thus allowed the appeals of the 
respondent 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
>' 
A 
Aggrieved, the appellant has appealed to this Court contending that 
.., 
the High Court fell into an error in re-appreciating the evidence. 
The respondent contended that the appellant had in possession two 
residential portions which he had let out but he did not plead that he was in 
B 
possession of other accommodation and that the same was not suitable for 
non-residential purposes. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. The word "accommodation" takes in both residential as 
c 
well as non-residential building or part of a building. In Section 12 (1) (e) 
& (f), the expression "accommodation let for residential purposes" and. 
"accommodation let for non-residential purposes" are used distinctly in 
\ 
clear and unmistakable terms. (5-G) 
1.2. A plain reading of the provi!iions makes it clear that the Act 
D 
maintains a clear distinction between the accommodation let out for residential 
purposes and non-residential purposes. Clause (e) deals with the ground of 
l 
eviction of a tenant from accommodation let for residential purposes, if the 
..,_ 
~ 
landlord bonafide requires the accommodation let for residential purposes 
for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, 
..;_ 
provided there is no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation of 
.. ~~ 
\ 
E his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Clause (t) which 
deals with ground of eviction of a tenant from accommodation let for non-
residential purposes provides that the tenant can be evicted ifthe landlord 
requires accommodation bonafide for the purpose of continuing or starting 
his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he 
• 
!, 
F 
is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation 
is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable suitable 
' '- non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or 
4 
town concerned. (6-E-F-G-H; 7-A) 
Firm Panjumal Dau/a/ram v. Sakhi Gopal, [1977) 3 sec 284 and 
G Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. RaghunathPraSad, AIR (1981) SC 1711, relied on. 
2.1. The appellant is to satisfy the CourURent Controller that he or 
such person for whom eviction is sought, has no other reasonable suitable 
non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or 
town concerned. It follows that the landlord seek

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