Deciding Authority : Supreme Court
Date of Judgement : 07/01/2000
Bench : V.N. KHARE & S.N. PHUKAN
Facts : The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 12(l)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the defendant- tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement as he required the suit premises for opening a show-room of Indo-Suzuki motor-cycles and TVS-50 mopeds for which he was appointed sub-dealer. The trial court came to the finding that the plaintiff- landlord was in bona fide need of the disputed premises for doing his own business and for this purpose no other suitable shop was available to him in the city of Chattarpur. The lower appellate court after consider-ing the evidence on record upheld the above finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-tenant.The learned single Judge of the High Court was of the view that the Courts below had wrongly placed the onus on the defendant- tenant of proving that alternative accommodation was not suitable for the plaintiff-landlord and that courts below had ignored the fact that plaintiff-landlord had admitted that he and his father were in possession of certain shops and had not stated why these alternative shops were not suitable for their business or they were vacant.
Judgement : The only question to be decided in the suit was whether plaintiff-landlord (Appellant) wanted the suit premises for the bona fide requirement. The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided on the appreciation of evidence. This view was also expressed by this Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr., JT (1998) 5 SC 540. It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted.
Held : Appeal Allowed
Tejasv Anand , IVth Year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL, DELHI .
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS