RAGAVENDRA KUMAR versus FIRM PREM MACHINERY AND CO.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 07-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
-· 
I 
RAGAVENDRA K'UMAR 
A 
v. 
F1RM PREM MACHINERY AND CO. 
JANUARY 7, 2000 
(V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHU.KAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 : Section 
12(1)(!)-Appellant/landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of C 
bonafide requirement-Stated in evidence that the owner haJ several other 
shops and houses but they were not vacant and also not suitable for his 
purpos~.Plaint amended-Amendment not 
rebutted by the ReJpon-
dent/tenant-Suit decreed--Trial Court held that burden of proving his 
bonafide need was on the Appellant/landlord- -First appeal dismissetf-High 
CouTt allowed second appea~Assumed that Appellant/landlord admitted of 
having other premises--On appeal, Held : Landlord is best Judge of his 
requirement-High CouTt erred in holding that lower appellate CouTt wrongly 
D 
put onus on respondent/tenant-Lower appellate CouTt had held that burden 
of proving that the landlord had many shops in the city, lay on respon-
dent/tenant but the Court did so while appreciating evidence on record 
adduced by paTtieJ-Lower appellate CouTt decided appeal on preponderance 
of evidence, not on basis of burden of proof 
E 
The Appellant-landlord filed a suit for eviction under Section 
12(1) (0 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against 
F 
the Respondent-tenant as he required the suit premises for opening a 
showroom of motorcycles for which he was appointed a sub-dealer. During 
pendency of the suit, father of the appellant-landlord died and the plaint 
was amended by adding a para to it stating that no building left by 
appellant's father was vacant or was in appellant's possession. l'ieither any 
additional written statement was filed nor any further evidence was ad-
G 
duced, after the amendment, by either party. The trial court gave a finding 
that the appellant-landlord required the suit premises for his own business 
and no other suitable shop was available to him for the said purpose in 
the city. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the 
Respondent/tenant. On second Appeal, the High Court, setting aside the H 
77 
78 
Sl:PRhMF COL:RT RFPORT~ 
[2000j l S.C.R. 
A judgments and decrees of tbe courts below, observed that the courts below 
had wrongly placed onus on the respondent for proving that alternative 
accommodation was not suitable for the appellant. It was also observed 
that in view of the admission of the appellant that he and his father 
possessed certain shops, no explanation had been given by the appellant 
B as to why the said alternative shops were not suitable for his purpose. 
Hence the present appeal. 
c 
The appellant-landlord contended that in the second appeal the High 
Court erred in law by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact of the 
courts below by re-appreciating the evidence on record. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is true that the appellant-landlord in his evidence 
stated that there were number of other shops and houses belonging to him 
but he made a categorical statement that the said houses and shops were 
D not vacant and that the suit premises was suitable for his business 
purpose. It is settled position of law that landlord is the best Judge of his 
requirement for residt,ntial or business purpose and he has got complete 
freedom in the matter. In the case in hand the appellant-landlord wanted 
eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as 
E it was suitable and it cannot be faulted. [81-B-C] 
Prativa Devi (Smt. I v. T. V. Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353, relied on. 
Kashibai w/o Lacl1iram and Another v. Panvatibai wio Lachiram and 
Other:., [ 1995] 6 SCC 213 and Ram Prasad Rajak v. i'VUl!d Kumar & Brus. 
F & Anr., JT (1998) 5 SC 540, referred to. 
1.3. It is true that the lower appellate Court was of the view that the 
burden of proving that the appellant-landlord had many shops in the city, 
lied with the Respondent-tenant but Court did so while appreciating the 
evidence on record adduced by the parties. The above view was expressed 
G by the appellate Court after holding that on preliminary documents and 
evidence produced before the courts below it was evident that the dis puled 
shop was required by the appellant-landlord for bonafide need. On going 
through the judgment of the lower appellate Court it is found that the 
appellate Court decided the appeal on preponderance of evidence and not 
H on the basis of burden of 

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