LexV. SUMATIBEN MAGANLAL MANANI (DEAD) BY L.R. versus UTTAMCHAND KASHIPRASAD SHAH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 943 V. SUMATIBEN MAGANLAL MANANI (DEAD) BY L.R. V. UTIAMCHAND KASHIPRASAD SHAH AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No.6685 of 1999) JULY 4, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Rent Control: A 8 Eviction - On the ground of sub-letting - Case of plaintiff- c landlady that she had let out the shop in question to defendant no.1-tenant for running grocery business but the latter sublet the same to defendant no.2-milk vendor-Appellate court, on . the basis of material on record, arrived at the finding of subletting against defendant no. 1-tenant ~ High Court, in 0 revision, was dismissive of the finding of the appellate court on the issue of sub-letting - Justification of - Held: Not Justified - The plaintiff's case of subletting of the shop by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 was greatly supported by the report prepared by the Court Commissioner who had E visited the suit shop - The Court Commissioner did not find any grocery items in the suit shop but found lying there six empty milk cans and some glass show-cases containing small card-board boxes used for packaging sweets, bearing the name "Chandrika Dudh Ghar'' and in the loft of the shop F five more milk cans and some 150 to 250 empty sweet boxes - The Court Commissioner also found there certain books of accounts but before he could examine those books of accounts the inspecting party was attacked by four or five people coming from the adjoining shop of defendant no.2 - The intruders assaulted the husband and attorney holder of G plaintiff-landlady and disrupted the inspection. being held by the Court Commissioner - The inspection, thus, came to an abrupt end - Clearly the inspection by the Court 943 H 944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A Commissioner was obstructed at the instance of defendant no. 2 and the intruders had come at his behest - The defendant no. 1 took a rather lame plea to try to explain away the findings of the Court Commissioner by stating that the marriage of his nephew was to take place and he had given B an order for sweets to defendant No. 2 - The appellate court rightly rejected the explanation furnished by defendant no. 1 observing that there should be no reason for empty sweet boxes to be lying at the shop after two years of the marriage - The defendant no. 1 not only fabricated evidence by later c on keeping in the suit shop sweet boxes with the inscription about his nephew's wedding but also abused the process of the court for his purpose by filing a separate suit and getting a Court Commissioner appointed in that suit for the discovery of the fake sweet boxes - The appellate court rightly came to 0 find and hold that the suit premises were in fact in the use and occupation of defendant no.2. Eviction - On the ground oi' non-user of premises - Suit for eviction - Decree passed by trial court - Appellate court affirmed the finding of trial court that the suit shop was not E used by the tenant for the purpose for which it was let--out for 1 a continuous period of more than six months immed1 ely preceding the date of the suit and confirmed the evict1 n decree - Tenant filed revision before the High Court - Hig Court set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the courts F below on the issue of non-user of the suit shop - Justification of - Held: Not justified - High Court took a rather perfunctory view of the matter - The appellate court did not arrive at its finding on a juxtaposition of segregated pieces of fact but took into consideration the overall picture emerging from all the G material facts and circumstances relating to the case - Apart from the suit shop the tenant had set up two other shops - When the Court Commissioner visited the suit shop it was found closed - The tenant gave a false explanation for not · opening the shop, stating that it was not opened due to the H death of his maternal uncle even though one other shop set V. SUMATIBEN MAGANLAL MANANI (DEAD) BY LR. v. 945 UTIAMCHAND KASHIPRASAD SHAH up by him was not only open but he was also personally A present there on that date - "Rojmel" filed by tenant in support of the plea that he ran grocery business at the suit shop through an employee was false - Electricity bills showed that there was no consumption of electricity in the suit shop over a period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the B suit - In fact, electric supply to the suit shop was disconnected
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.