9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bona fide requirement of the landlord. 2. Suppression of material evidence by the landlord. 3. Concurrent findings of lower courts. 4. Consideration of subsequent events in appellate proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bona fide requirement of the landlord: The respondent-landlord claimed that the premises were required for starting a retail business due to the inconvenience and uneconomical nature of his current wholesale business. The trial court, appellate authority, and the High Court all concurred that the landlord's requirement was bona fide. However, the Supreme Court noted that the lower courts confused 'requirement' with 'desire' and failed to differentiate between the two. The appellate authority wrongly justified the landlord's need based solely on the fact that he was running his business in tenanted premises, which was not the respondent's original contention. 2. Suppression of material evidence by the landlord: The appellant challenged the landlord's claim of incurring losses in his wholesale business and called for the production of financial documents. The landlord failed to produce these documents, citing that they were with his auditor who was out of station. The trial court accepted the landlord's assertion without adverse inference for non-production of evidence. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, highlighting that evidence showing business losses was not only unproduced but suppressed, thus questioning the genuineness of the landlord's claim. 3. Concurrent findings of lower courts: The Supreme Court acknowledged that three courts had concurrently held the landlord's requirement as bona fide. However, it emphasized that the burden lies on the appellant to show that these decisions were manifestly unjust. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had drawn a priori conclusions without proper evidence, thereby denying justice to the appellant. The High Court's summary dismissal of the revision petition was also criticized for not addressing the core issue. 4. Consideration of subsequent events in appellate proceedings: The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of considering subsequent events during appellate proceedings. By the time the civil revision petition was argued before the High Court, the landlord had already obtained eviction orders against three out of four ground floor tenants and one out of three first-floor tenants. The Supreme Court referenced the decision in *Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad*, emphasizing that the landlord's need must exist at the date of the appellate decree or when a higher court deals with the matter. The High Court failed to consider these subsequent events, which significantly altered the factual position and potentially negated the landlord's requirement for the appellant's premises. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found no justification for evicting the appellant given that the landlord's requirement was adequately met by the eviction of other tenants. It doubted whether the landlord would have succeeded in any of the cases if the trial court had correctly appreciated the suppression of material evidence. Consequently, the judgments of the High Court, the Appellate Authority, and the trial court were set aside, and the eviction petition against the appellant was dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay costs quantified at rupees five thousand.
|
