Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 775 (AP)

Mohd. Moizuddin Siddiqui v. Mohd. Ismail

2000-10-13

B.PRAKASH RAO

body2000
B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the tenants and they seek to challenge the orders of eviction from the suit premises of which the respondent is the landlord, who initiated the proceedings mainly on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide personal requirement. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition rejecting both the grounds. However, on appeal by the landlord, the eviction was ordered accepting the ground of bona fide personal requirement and rejecting the ground of wilful default. Thus, though the ground of wilful default was rejected by both the courts below, there is no challenge by the landlord on this count. Hence, in this revision, the only question remains to be considered is whether on the facts and circumstances the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute as to jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The tenanted premises is a non-residential and commercial shop on a monthly rent of rs. 200/- per month, which was let out in pursuance of rental agreement dated 1-6-1982. The case of the landlord is that he himself is running a kirana shop in a rented mulgi at Shalibanda and his landlord asked him to vacate, as willingness was obtained from him by the Quli Qutubshah Urban development Authority to acquire for the purpose of road widening. Hence, he requires the suit premises for his own business. The petitioners countenanced these allegations by total denial and stating that the ground is invented for the purpose of eviction. However, in view of threat of dispossession, they had to file a suit in o. S. No. 2423 of 1991 for permanent injunction. ( 4 ) IN the enquiry the landlord examined himself as P. W. I and marked Exs. P-1 to p-4 and the petitioners/tenants examined r. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. R-1 to R-83. The Rent Controller did not accept the plea on the ground that Exs. P-3 and P-4, alleged letters of Quli Qutub Shah Urban development Authority were not proved and the landlord having purchased a mulgi in the name of his wife sold it away and there is no material to show that the mulgi rented by the landlord is affected by road widening. P-3 and P-4, alleged letters of Quli Qutub Shah Urban development Authority were not proved and the landlord having purchased a mulgi in the name of his wife sold it away and there is no material to show that the mulgi rented by the landlord is affected by road widening. However, in the appeal the finding was reversed on the ground that the landlord is seeking the suit mulgi for his own purpose of doing business and the mulgi purchased was in the name of his wife and not occupied by him, as it was not convenient. ( 5 ) NOW, with this background and on the rival submissions, it has to be seen whether the orders of eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement on these facts and findings thereon are justified. ( 6 ) ON a conspectus of the decisions cited across the Bar, in Hameedia Hardware Stores vs. B. Mohan Lal Sowcarl, the Apex Court while considering a similar provision contained in Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, held that in respect of a ground of bona fide requirement, it is necessary that the landlord should establish that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to therein. Thus, the requirement of landlord for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and the ingredients required therefor have to go with such requirement which should be bona fide one. Accordingly, it is a comprehensive approach which has to be made while approving seal on the requirement of the landlord. In this case, though both the lower Courts have negatived the plea of the landlord but reversal thereof by the High Court, in revision the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. Accordingly, it is a comprehensive approach which has to be made while approving seal on the requirement of the landlord. In this case, though both the lower Courts have negatived the plea of the landlord but reversal thereof by the High Court, in revision the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. ( 7 ) IN Ramesh vs. A. Balreddy, the Apex court, while considering a case arising out of the Andhra Pradesh legislation, rejected the ground of personal requirement since it was established that the requirement of premises was for the married daughter of landlord for running a separate clinic and held that the evidence was enough to show that the landlord was forcing the tenant to raise the rate of rent from time to time and was making a further demand, which was not acceded to by the tenant and the said requirement was fanciful wish and could not be accepted for granting decree of eviction. ( 8 ) IN K. A. Anthappai vs. C. Ahammed, a case arising under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Supreme court, though of course, held that a finding of fact recorded in favour of the appellant by the appellate Court cannot be interfered with by the High Court; however on the ground of personal requirement it held that such claim cannot be said to be a false one on the ground that he was living with his son. It was further held that the bonafide need of the premises by the landlord could not be negatived as the building requires repairs and alterations before landlord can occupy the same. In view of the fact that the tenant was dependant for his livelihood mainly on the trade or business carried on by him in disputed premises and any appreciation of the said ground without considering whether the tenant is entitled to invoke the protection as such, the matter was again remanded back for afresh consideration. In view of the fact that the tenant was dependant for his livelihood mainly on the trade or business carried on by him in disputed premises and any appreciation of the said ground without considering whether the tenant is entitled to invoke the protection as such, the matter was again remanded back for afresh consideration. ( 9 ) IN V. Radhakrishnan vs. S. N. Loganatha mudaliar, the Supreme Court while dealing with the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord in a case arising out of Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, proceeded to held that the fact that the landlord is in occupation of a non-residential building in the same city would not bar eviction of tenant from a non-residential building for business of landlord s family member, if such member is not in occupation of any other non-residential building in the city and thus approved the ground of bona fide requirement as valid. ( 10 ) IN Vishwanath vs. Hidayatt Ullah, the apex Court held that where the landlord requiring the premises for starting kirana shop for himself as well as for his son, who was then unemployed, and subsequently the landlord s son getting employed to be not relevant and cannot come in the way of landlord seeking eviction. In that case, since the landlord was a retired government servant, it was held that it implies that there was bona fide requirement for him to start the business. ( 11 ) THIS Court in Manoj Kumar Jain vs. Lalchand Ahuja, while considering the same ground, held that in respect of a non-residential premises, it was always open to the member of the joint family to start a business of his own by seeking eviction of the premises and it is not necessary that he should prove that he should have previous experience in the new business. ( 12 ) LASTLY, considering the scope of revisional powers, the Apex Court in Vaneet jain vs. Jagjit Singh held that the High Court cannot reassess the evidence only to come a different finding in its revisional jurisdiction. In that case, both the Courts have concurrently found that the need was bona fide and therefore the different conclusion arrived at by the High Court after reassessment of evidence was held to be not permissible in law. In that case, both the Courts have concurrently found that the need was bona fide and therefore the different conclusion arrived at by the High Court after reassessment of evidence was held to be not permissible in law. ( 13 ) KEEPING in view these principles, it is seen in this case that in respect of the ground of bona fide requirement, the Rent controller rejected the plea as specifically set up by the landlord, i. e. , he himself being in rented shop and his own landlord asking him to vacate since that mulgi is being affected by road widening at the instance of quli Qutubshah Urban Development authority and having given consent and thus said business needs to be shifted to his own shop. Exs. P-3 and P-4 were filed by the landlord to show the requirement of quli Qutubshah Urban Development authority, but they were not accepted by the Rent Controller on the ground that they are not proved as no one concerned with them were examined. Even factually as regards road widening, the statement of r. W. 1 examined on behalf of the tenant was accepted to the effect that the entire road widening proposal was already implemented and the rented mulgi of the landlord is not affected. Further he proceeded on the ground that the landlord as P. W. I did not depose in his evidence that the mulgi, which was purchased by him in the name of his wife and subsequently sold, is not suitable for the business. Thus, with these and other detailed reasons as given by the Rent Controller constituting the basis for the finding, the lower appellate Court did not touch upon these reasons as given by the Rent Controller nor any comment is made either to accept or reject the same, however, it simply sought to proceed that since the landlord himself wants to occupy his own mulgi for convenience and the mulgi purchased by him in the name of his wife having been sold not convenient for his business and therefore the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. The ultimate decision rests on findings. Reason constitutes core matrix for a finding. There cannot be a finding without reasons. Apart from inseparability, the finding is a ultimate resultant following the reasons. Therefore, a finding has to be tested on the touchstone of reasons. The ultimate decision rests on findings. Reason constitutes core matrix for a finding. There cannot be a finding without reasons. Apart from inseparability, the finding is a ultimate resultant following the reasons. Therefore, a finding has to be tested on the touchstone of reasons. Absence of reasons on laconic conclusions are void. Considered reasons rightly and amply strengthens a finding, bad reasons though vitiates a finding. Therefore, every finding has to be supported by reasons and reversal of a finding requires a consideration of the reasons given, either to approve or reject. The appellate Court is the last Court for appreciation on facts and thus it should take care to see that the issue is considered in a more perspective manner on all the aspects, which it has undergone in the court below. More so when the appellate court on a different conclusion tries to interfere with the finding of the lower Court or Tribunal, it has to necessarily meet the findings and all the reasons given in support thereof, by giving his own reasons and find fault with the reasons given by the court below and reverse the same by its own finding. Merely giving different independent and its own reasons and de hors the reasons given by the Court below would not be a valid reversal. In the hierarchy, the Tribunals or the Courts have to check the correctness of the findings at different levels but giving weight or consideration to the others reasoning. It thus mandates an appellate Court exercising powers under Section 20 of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 to delve into the reasons of the Court below and then come to its own decision. Whereas, in this case, since except the twin reasons given in a sweeping manner, without having a say on the reasons shown by the Rent Controller, the matter requires reconsideration and fresh appraisal. ( 14 ) FOLLOWING the principles laid down the personal requirement of landlord and bona fides behind it is not only a comprehensive issue but also a complicated one which could be assessed and given a seal only after proper consideration and appraisal of the entire evidence and material on record, vis-a-vis, the allegations made in the pleadings. ( 14 ) FOLLOWING the principles laid down the personal requirement of landlord and bona fides behind it is not only a comprehensive issue but also a complicated one which could be assessed and given a seal only after proper consideration and appraisal of the entire evidence and material on record, vis-a-vis, the allegations made in the pleadings. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration on merits and disposal in accordance with law. The lower appellate court shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.