Civil Appeal No. 4244 Of 2006. Case: Dinesh Kumar Vs Yusuf Ali. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 4244 Of 2006
CounselFor Appellant: Manish Vashisht, Sameer Vashisht, Sanjay Saini, Aashita Yadav, Ashok Mathur and S. K. Verma, Advs.and For Respondents: A.K. Chitale, Sr. Adv., Niraj Sharma, Sumit Kumar Sharma and Vikrant Singh Bais, Advs.
JudgesDr. B.S. Chauhan and S. Kumar, JJ.
IssueMadhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 12(1); Rent Control Act; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1); Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16; Civil Procedure Code ...
CitationAIR 2010 SC 2679 , 2010 (6) SCALE 41 , 2010 (6) UJ 2847 (SC)
Judgement DateMay 26, 2010
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Dr. B.S. Chauhan,J

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 25th January, 2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 726 of 2003 by which the High Court while allowing the Second Appeal reversed the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the First Appellate Court in First Appeal No. 2/2003 by which the First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 30A/1999 allowing the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant.

  2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant-tenant was inducted by the respondent- landlord on 1.10.1978 in a shop in house No. 83, Main Street, Mhow for a non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The respondent-landlord enhanced the rent from time to time and ultimately it was enhanced on 1.3.1995 to the extent of Rs.700/-p.m. The respondent-landlord had taken a sum of Rs.35,000/- as loan from the appellant-tenant. Some amount therefrom was to be adjusted towards a part of monthly rent. Respondent-landlord filed suit No.30A/1999 on 1.4.1999 for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of nuisance and bone fide requirement for himself contending that he was carrying on business of plastic goods and shoes in a rented `Gumti' measuring 3 ft. x 4 ft. on a Nalla. Respondent was in need of the disputed shop for carrying on his business alongwith his son Zulfikar Ali. Parties exchanged the affidavits and examined large number of witnesses in support of their respective claims before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002, decreed the suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act 1961') on the ground of bona fide need, however, did not accept the plea of nuisance.

  3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the First Appeal No.2/2003 before the First Additional District Judge, Mhow and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2003 on the ground that the landlord had enhanced the rent from time to time; his son had been in employment in Dubai, therefore, the bona fide need was a pretext to enhance the rent or evict the tenant.

  4. Being aggrieved, the landlord-respondent approached the High Court by filing Second Appeal No.726 of 2003 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.1.2006. Hence, this appeal.

  5. Mr. Manish Vashisht, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court committed grave error in entertaining the Second Appeal though no substantial question of law was involved therein. As to whether the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record to find out as to whether need of the landlord is real and bona fide, is a question of fact. Therefore, the Second Appeal itself was not maintainable. The suit property is not required by the landlord as he is doing his business at another premises for last 35 years; his son is in employment in Dubai. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

  6. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that if the finding of fact recorded by the court below is found to be perverse, the High Court can entertain the Second Appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. The landlord is the best Judge to determine as to what is his requirement and what is the proper place of his business. A tenant cannot force the landlord to carry out his business in the rented premises of negligible dimension. Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court does not warrant any interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

  7. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

  8. In Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353, this Court held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.

  9. However, in Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1422, this Court held that `bona...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
26 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT