Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961: s.12(1)(f) – Eviction from shop on the ground of bonafide need – Eviction suit filed by respondent-landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement to settle his son – Trial court dismissed the suit – However, first appellate court as well as High Court held that landlord had established bonafide requirement for establishing business of his son – In the instant appeal, contention of tenant was that the son of the landlord was already in the business of utensils from the shop in the same building and this aspect was not considered by High Court and that High Court also failed to consider the additional evidence adduced by appellant that another tenant had vacated the shop occupied by him, and the same was available for son of respondent – Held: Mere fact that the son of the landlord for whose requirement instant suit was filed was involved in the business of utensils would not render bona fide need for the premises as doubtful – It is not expected that the landlord’s son would sit idle without doing any work till the eviction petition is decided – If there is categorical averment by the respondent that the premises is required for his son, his engaging in the business of utensils in the meanwhile, would not be a ground to deny decree for eviction – Further, vacation of another shop by another tenant and owned by the landlord cannot be said to be available to respondent’s son as the same was vacated for the bona fide requirement of another son – Rent Control and Eviction.
Subsequent event: Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit – However, in appropriate cases, court can take note of all the subsequent events – The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtained at the commencement of the litigation – Whenever, there is subsequent events of fact or law, which have a material bearing on the rights of the parties to relief or on the aspects of moulding appropriate relief to the parties, the court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, in appropriate cases, court can take note of all the subsequent events. The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtained at the commencement of the litigation. Whenever, there is subsequent events of fact or law, which have a material bearing on the rights of the parties to relief or on the aspects of moulding appropriate relief to the parties, the court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. The shop vacated by other tenant is for the bona fide requirement of respondent-landlord’s another son. In that view of the matter, the court would not be justified in taking notice of such a subsequent fact sought to be projected by the appellant to oppose the relief granted by the courts below. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the subsequent event relied upon by the appellant-tenant cannot be taken cognizance. Respondent-landlord has four sons and the other shop vacated by tenant was meant for the bona fide requirement of another son. If that shop is not actually occupied by the other son, the other tenant has a right to initiate the proceedings against the landlord for his re-entry in the said adjacent shop in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that alternative accommodation was available for the respondent-landlord’s son due to vacation of the said adjacent shop by another tenant. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 19][917-D; 918-D-E, H; 919-A-B, D]
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal (2002) 2 SCC
256 : [2002] 1 SCR 359 ; Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992) Supp 2 SCC 623 ; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 : [2001] 1 SCR 923 – relied on
2. The High Court rightly held that there was no ground to entertain the additional documents and no substantial question of law arose. The first appellate court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings of fact upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence that the suit shop was required bona fide for the son of the landlord for the purpose of doing business and that the respondent-landlord had no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation for the business of his son. There is no ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. [Para 20][919-E-G]
Bishanswaroop v. Rajkumar Kuchata & Ors.2015 (1) M.P.A.C.J.-151 ; Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal (2001) 5 SCC 705 : [2001] 3 SCR 925 ; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 : [2001] 1 SCR 923 ; T. Sivasubramaniam and Others. v. Kasinath Pujari and Others.(1999) 7 SCC 275 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 143 ; Hameedia Hardware Stores, represented by its partner S. Peer Mohammed v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar (1988) 2 SCC 513 : [1988] 3 SCR 384 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.