9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Personal requirement of the landlord for starting a business. 2. Availability of suitable alternative accommodation for the landlord. 3. Dilapidated condition of the building and necessity for reconstruction. 4. Tenant's right to re-occupation under Section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 5. Consideration of subsequent events in eviction proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Personal Requirement of the Landlord for Starting a Business: The landlord sought eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming he intended to start a medicine shop and had no other suitable accommodation. The trial court found that the landlord required the premises for his business and had no other suitable accommodation. This finding was upheld by the District Court, which noted that the landlord was a student who might start a business after completing his education. However, the High Court failed to consider that the landlord had obtained possession of another part of the building from firm Goraldas Parmanand, which could be used for the same purpose. 2. Availability of Suitable Alternative Accommodation for the Landlord: The landlord admitted in the plaint that he had obtained a decree for eviction against firm Goraldas Parmanand, which occupied a major portion of the building. The tenant argued that this portion was sufficient for the landlord's business needs. The High Court rejected the tenant's application to amend the written statement to include this fact, citing delay and laches. However, the Supreme Court held that the landlord must prove he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation. The landlord's possession of a significant portion of the building (18' x 90' plus 7' x 68') was sufficient for starting his business, making the eviction of the tenant unnecessary. 3. Dilapidated Condition of the Building and Necessity for Reconstruction: The landlord also sought eviction under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act, claiming the building was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. The trial court and the District Court found that the building needed reconstruction and that the landlord had sufficient funds for it. The Supreme Court respected this finding but noted that the landlord's composite requirement (for both business and residence) was not justified since he already had enough space for his business. 4. Tenant's Right to Re-occupation under Section 18: Section 18 of the Act provides that a tenant evicted for reconstruction has the right to re-occupation. The courts below denied this right to the tenant, citing the landlord's composite requirement. The Supreme Court held that since the landlord was not entitled to possession for his residence and had sufficient space for his business, the composite requirement disappeared. The case was remanded to the first appellate court to determine if the landlord was interested in reconstructing the portion occupied by the tenant and to give appropriate directions under Section 18. 5. Consideration of Subsequent Events in Eviction Proceedings: The Supreme Court emphasized that in eviction proceedings, the landlord's requirement must exist not only at the time of filing the suit but also at the time of the final decree. The High Court erred in not considering the subsequent event of the landlord obtaining possession of the premises from firm Goraldas Parmanand. The Supreme Court cited its earlier decision in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, affirming that courts must take cognizance of subsequent events to ensure justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction decree, and remanded the case to the first appellate court to: 1. Determine if the landlord is interested in reconstructing the portion occupied by the tenant. 2. Ascertain if the landlord can reconstruct the building without requiring the tenant to vacate. 3. Provide appropriate directions under Section 18 if the landlord's reconstruction interest is established. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
