RAGHUNATH G. PANHALE (DEAD) BY LRS. versus M/S. CHAGANLAL SUNDARJI AND CO.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 13-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAGHUNATH G. PANHALE (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v . 
. 
, 
M/s. CHAGANLAL SUNDARJI AND CO. 
OCTOBER 13, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
-
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging & House Rates (Control) Act, 
1947-S.13(1)(g}-Eviction-Non-residential premises-Eviction suit on the c 
=-· 
ground of bonafide requirement of landlord-Premises required for starting a 
grocery business after being rendered jobless due to lockout-Dismissed by 
trial court holding that landlord has not pennanently lost his job, there is no 
proof of availability of capital for investment and experience in grocery 
business-Non-interference by High Court with the concumnt findings of fact 
D 
-Held; bonafide requirement does not mean 'dire', 'absolute' or 'compelling 
necessities'---Landlord need not actually lose his job nor resign it nor reach 
the level of starvation to get the possession of premises-No necessity for 
landlord to prove that he has capital to invest and has experience in butt-
ness-Thus, entire approach of courts below were wrong in law and perverse 
., . 
on facts-High Court not justified in refusing to interfere with the concurrent 
::ol. 
E 
findings of facts-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 227 and 136. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136 : 
Interference with the concurrent findings of courts below-Scope 
of-Trial Court and Appellate Court equating need or requirement with 'dire' 
F 
or 'absolute' or 'compelling necessity'--Non-interference by High 
Court-Held; a fit case for interference under Article 136. 
Discretionary power-Exercise of-Amendment of plaint-Wrongly al-
__ ·! 
lowed-Effect of-Eviction suit for bonafide requirement-Death of original 
G 
landlord-Amendment of plaint by legal heirs-Evidence led by parties on 
amended plaint-No prejudice caused to the tenant due to amend-
ment-Held; since tenant has suffered no prejudice due to amendment, 
~ 
landlords should not at this distance of time after a lapse of 13 years be drived 
to file a fresh suit-Plea that amendment wrongfully allowed not pennited to 
be raised. 
H 
629 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Words & Phrases 
'Reasonable requirement', 'bonafide requirement' meaning of in the 
context of S.13( l)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates 
(Control) Act, 1947. 
B 
The predecessor-in-interest of appellants filed an eviction suit 
against respondent-tenant on the ground of bonafide and reasonable re-
quirement. On the death of the original landlord his legal heirs, viz., 
appellants were brought on record. The plaint was allowed to be amended 
by legal heirs and evidence was led on the said amended pleadings. One 
C of the appellant-legal heirs pleaded that the non-residential suit premises 
was required by him for starting a grocery business as he was rendered 
jobless due to lock out. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that there 
was no proof of capital available for investment, no proof of experience of 
appellant in grocery business and since the lock out had not put the 
appellant out of his job permanently, the requirement was not bonafide. 
D The court also held that on the death of the original landlord, the suit 
abated because the original landlords requirement was different from that 
of his heirs. On appeal, the appellate court while confirming the findings 
regarding bonafide ~·equirement, reversed the findings on the point of 
abatement. On appeal, High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent 
E findings of facts of courts below. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1.1. This is a fit case for interfuence under Article 136 of the 
Constitution as the courts were wrong in thinking . that the appellant· 
F landlord must prove not his need but 'dire' or 'absolute necessity'. [633-G] 
1.2. Though it is well settled that this Court under Article 136 will 
not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the courts 
below, this court could go into the correctness of findings of fact where 
G "the concurrent decision of two or more courts or tribunals is 
manifestly unjust". In the instant case, the entire approach of courts below 
were absolutely wrong in law, and perverse on fact. Thus, it is an excep· 
tional case calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of 
India. [634-A; B; C; DJ 
H 
Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohd. lbralzim Naina, [198511 SCC 251 
-
/ 
-
. , 
RAG HUN A TH G. PANHALE v. C. S. & 

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