UDAY SHANKAR UPADHYAY & ORS. versus NAVEEN MAHESHWARI

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 18-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1002 
A 
UDAY SHANKAR UPADHYAY & ORS. 
v. 
'>· 
'". 
NAVEEN MAHESHWARI 
(Civil Appeal No.5888 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 18, 2009 
B 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION: 
Bona fide need - Suit for eviction on ground of bona fide 
c need of landlord to start business for his major sons - Decreed 
by trial court, but dismissed by first appellate court.1and High 
Court holding that the proposed business could be started on 
First Floor-Held: The finding of fact recorded by trial court that 
sons of the plaintiff bona fide wanted to start their own business 
separately, has not been disturbed in appeal - Court cannot 
D 
dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his 
business; that is for the landlord himself to decide - It is well-
known that shops and businesses are usually (though not 
.. 
invariably) conducted on the ground floor, because the 
customers can reach there easily- The view of the courts below 
E 
that the sons of the plaintiff should do business on the first floor 
which is being used for residential purpose was wholly arbitrary 
and, therefore, cannot be sustained - The finding that the sons 
of plaintiff are getting salary from the firm is wholly irrelevant 
and such fact was wrongly taken into consideration by the High 
F 
Court- Judgments of High Court as well as first appellate court 
set aside and that of the trial court restored. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC.110N: Civil Appeal No. 5888 
of 2006. 
' 
From the Judgmcmt & Order dated 06.10.2005 of the High 
G 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in S.A. No. 107 of 
2004. 
A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma, Sumlt Kumar Sharma for the 
Appellants., 
H 
1002 
UDAY SHAN KAR UPADHYAY & ORS. v. NAVEEN 1003 
MAHESHWARI 
P.P. Singh Akshat Shrivastava, lnderjeet Yadav, for the 
A 
-.. .. 
Respondent. 
I 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned 
judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 
B 
6.10.2005 in Second Appeal No. 107 of 2094. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
record. 
3. The Landlord-appellant filed a suit for eviction of the tenant 
C 
from the shop in question on the ground that he needs the shop 
for setting· up the business of his two sons viz. Nischal Upadhyay 
and Bhaskar Upadhyay, and there is no other suit-able 
accommodation for the said purpose. 
4. The facts have been mentioned in the judgments of the 
0 
courts below and hence we are not repeating the same here. 
5. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit for eviction against 
the tenant stating inter alia, that the shop in dispute (which is on 
. the ground floor) is required for starting the business of Nischal 
Upaqhyay and Bhaskar Upadhyay, major sons of plaintiff No. 1. 
E 
The trial court by judgment dated 8.10.2002 found that the need 
of the landlord was bona fide and decreed the suit. 
6. Before the trial court the tenants had taken the plea that 
the plaintiffs have alternative accommodation which is a hall over 
the suit shop, and hence the sons of plaintiff No. 1 can carry on 
business there. However, the trial court held that the said hall on 
F 
the first floor is a residential accommodation and the plaintiffs 
have no suitable accommodation for doing business. 
7. Against the judgment of the trial court, the defendant filed 
an appeal which has been allowed by the first appellate court by 
judgment dated 19.1.2004, true copy of the said judgment is at 
G 
Annexure P-2. The first appellate court held that the hall above 
the suit shop is a suitable alternative accommodation and it can 
be used for non-residential purpose. Hence the first appeal was 
allowed.· 
/) ·, 
8. It may be noted that the first appellate court has not held 
H 
1·004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
that the sons of plaintiff No. 1 do not have bona fide need of some 
premises for doing their business. All that it held was that the 
~ .. · 
alternative accommodation on the first floor which is a hall can 
be used for doing business. 
9. The appellants filed a second appeal which has been 
B 
dismissed by the impugned judgment and hence this appeal. 
c 
10. Thus the fact as found by the trial court is that the sons 
of plaintiff No. 1 bona fide want to start their own business 
separately, and this finding has not been disturbed in appeal. 
11. In our opinion, once it is not disputed that the landlord is 
in bona fide need of th

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