SMT. MEHRUNNISA AND ORS. versus SMT. VISHAM KUMAR! AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 02-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. ,i' 
SMT. MEHRUNNISA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. VISHAM KUMAR! AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 2, 1997 
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1976 : Section 129(f). 
Rent Control and Eviction-Bolla fide requirement of 
lalldladyLalldlady issued a llotice for eviction stating that premises was C 
required for the office of her husband, a practising lawyer-No suit filed on 
this basis-Second notice issued statillg that premises was required for cloth 
busilless-Again no suit was filed-171ird notice issued repeatillg the ground 
stated in second notice-Suit filed Oil the basis of this notice--Held : Only 
the ground stated ill the llotice preceding the suit is relevant for deciding the 
issue--Ground stated in first llotice not relevant for deciding the bona fide D 
requirement of the lalldlady--First appellate cowt failed to give due impor-
tance to the fact that the landlady has not taken any steps to file suit for 
eviction pursuant to the notice issued on two earlier occasions. 
Code of Civil Pmcedure, 1908 : Section 100. 
First appellate court-Judgment of-lnte1ference with-By High 
Court-In second appeaf--First appellate coult reversed the judgment of trial 
co ult without taking into account the documents necessary for giving a finding 
on the issue-Held: High Cowt justified in interfering with the judgmelll of 
E 
the first appellate coult. 
F 
The respondent-landlady issued a notice to her tenant terminating 
the tenancy stating that the suit premises, a non· residential one, was 
required for using it as an office for her husband, a practising lawyer. 
However, no action was taken pursuant to the said notil.-e. The respondent 
issued a second notice stating that the suit premises was required for her G 
cloth business which she intended to start. Even on the basis of the second 
notice, the respondent-landlady took no action. A third notice was also 
issued by the respondent-landlady repeating the same ground contained 
in the second notice. This time, the landlady filed a suit for eviction on the 
basis of the third notice. 
H 
81 
82 
,. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The trial court decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide require-
ment by the respondent-landlady for starting the cloth business. The first · 
appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court on .the 
ground that the respondent- landlady had changed her stand and put 
forward an entirely new ground for eviction, namely, ,that the premises was 
B required for starting a cloth business on the basis of a judgment of the 
High Court. 
Therefore, the respondent-landlady preferred a Second Appeal 
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High 
Court. The High Court held that the first appellate court failed to read 
C the whole evidence and all the documents exhibited in the trial court. The 
High Court further held· that the notice issued and the circumstances 
which prevailed just before the institution of the suit were relevant for 
coming to a conclusion regarding the bona fide requirement of the 
landlady. On this reasoning the High Court allowed the Second Appeal 
D and decreed the suit for eviction. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The first appellate court before reversing the finding of 
the trial court on the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlady for 
E starting a cloth business failed to read the entire evidence and take into 
consideration all the documents placed before the trial court. Therefore, 
the High Court was justified in interfering with the finding of the first 
appellate court. The first appellate court has looked into the contents of 
the first notice whereunder the landlady has stated that she required the 
F premises for her husband's office and ignored the notice issuedjust before 
the filing of the suit. The first appellate court has also failed to give due 
importance to the fact that the landlady has not taken any steps to file suit 
for eviction pursuant to the notice issued on two earlier occasions and the 
ground stated in the notice preceding the suit is relevant for the purpose 
G of deciding the issue. [88-B-E] 
Sarvate T.B. v. Nemichand, (1996) MPW 26 (SC) and Mattula/ v. 
Radhe Lal, [1974) 2 SCC 365, held inapplicable. 
2. The first appellate court while reversing the judgment of the trial 
H court has failed to take into account the documents necessary for giving a 
MEHRUNNISA v. VISH

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