SMT. JAHEJO DEVI & ORS. versus MOHARAM ALI

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 09-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
SMT. JAHEJO DEVI & ORS. 
v. 
MOHARAM ALI 
DECEMBER 9, 1987. 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977: 
S. 12 (I)-Eviction of tenant-Default in payment of rent-Bona fide 
need of landlord-Concurrent findings of trial and first appellate court 
in favour of landlord-Whether open to High Court to interfere in 
second appeal. 
The appellants-landlords, residents of the State of Bihar, carry-
ing on business in Meghalaya, sought eviction of the tenant from their 
suit shop in Arrah, Bihar on the ground of default in payment of rent 
A 
B 
c 
as well as on the ground of bona fide need, and for arrears of rent 
under s.12(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Con-
D 
trol Act, 1977. Their case was that the tenant had not paid the rent for 
the 'period of default and that due to disturbances in Meghalaya their 
business was completely disturbed and some of the children of the 
family, who had grown up, were sitting idle. They, therefore, wanted 
to do their business in the suit shop which was adjacent to their resi-
dential house and there was a connecting door. 
E 
The tenant took the plea that he had sent the money-order to 
their village address, and that there was no evidence to show that 
there was no other house available to the landlord from which his need 
could not be met. 
F 
The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the tenant was a 
defaulter. He had full knowledge about the fact that the landlord and 
her family members did not reside at the said village. So, even if the 
rent had been sent that could not be a valid tender. It further found 
that the case of the landlord about personal necessity was proved. The 
findings of the trial court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. G 
These findings were, however, reversed by the High Court in second 
appeal, which took the view that there was no evidence on record to 
show that the tenant knew the proper address to which remittance 
could have been made, and that there was no evidence of disturbances 
in Meghalaya. 
H 
253 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: 1. It was not open to the High Court in second appeal to 
intr~fere with the concurrent findings of facts of the first two courts 
both on default and bona fide need of the landlord. [259D I 
B 
2. The respondent-tenant was a habitual defaulter. Even after 
the knowledge of the proper address he bad been deliberately remit· 
ting the rent to a wrong address. There was, therefore, no valid 
tender. f256A-B] 
3. The appellants-landlords have been living and doing business 
C in Meghalaya where there was disturbance and it was difficult for 
them to have residence there. They allege that they have bona fide 
reasonable need of the suit shop for doing their business, which was 
adjacent to their residential house in Arrah and there was a connect· 
ing door. There were grown up sons doing no business. There was no 
evidence that there was some vacant premises which the landlord 
D could conveniently occupy. The first two courts, therefore, in acting 
on the basis of the reasonable need cannot be said to have committed 
any such irregularity which could have been interfered with by the 
High Court in second appeal. [258E·G I 
M.M. Qasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and others, AIR 1981 SC 
E 1113 at page 1121, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 
3974of1987. 
J
From the Judgment of Order dated 27.2.1987 of the High Court ,.
F of Patna in S.A. No. 103 of 1983. 
~
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants. 
B.B. Singh for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted and 
f 
Appeal disposed of as follows: 
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High 
H 
Court of Patna in second appeal, which was in respect of evic-
• 
r 
.. .. ( 
.... 
SMT. JAHEJO DEV! v. MOHARAM ALI [MUKHARJI, J.] 
255 
tion from of a premises at Arrah in Bihar. This is the landlords' A 
appeal. The landlord sued the tenant on the ground of default 
in payment of rent, as well as on the ground of bona fide need 
and also for arrears of rent. The eviction sought for was by a 
suit and the learned Trial Judge, the learned Add!. Munsiff 
decreed the suit on the ground of default in the payment of rent 
as well as on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. It is 
B 
not necessary in the

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