Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 786 (MP)

Jabalpur Plywoods v. Sushila Shukla

2001-10-31

S.P.KHARE

body2001
Judgment ( 1. ) THESE are the revisions by the non-applicants under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against order dated 5-11-1999 by which the Rent Controlling Authority has directed them to deliver vacant possession of the non-residential suit accommodation to the applicant. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that non-applicants are tenants of the applicant in the suit accommodation in a part of house No. 517, Madhatal, Jabalpur at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/ -. At present the suit accommodation consists of two shops but initially it was let out in the year 1976 as one shop to the non-applicants. They are two brothers--one is carrying on his business in the name of "jabalpur Plywood" and the other in the name of "plywood Agencies". Applicant Smt. Sushila Shukla is carrying on business in the name of "ankur Lodge" just behind the suit accommodation. The access to that lodge is through a narrow passage of 8-3" on the eastern side of the suit accommodation. There is main-road on the southern side of the suit accommodation. In other words the frontage of the suit accommodation is on the main road. ( 3. ) THE applicants case is that she requires one shop, half of the suit accommodation, for annexing it to the Ankur Lodge to make it a place for a counter and waiting room. The customers will have direct access to this reception place from the main road and this will augment her income from the lodge. She is a widow. She requires the other shop, another half of the suit accommodation for carrying on business of wholesale tea by her major son Vivek Shukla who has passed M. Sc. and M. B. A. He is at present doing some job and he will quit that job as soon as the accommodation is vacated. She has no other accommodation for this purpose in the city. The non-applicants have pleaded that the alleged need is a mere pretence to get the suit accommodation vacated. ( 4. and M. B. A. He is at present doing some job and he will quit that job as soon as the accommodation is vacated. She has no other accommodation for this purpose in the city. The non-applicants have pleaded that the alleged need is a mere pretence to get the suit accommodation vacated. ( 4. ) THE Rent Controlling Authority after appreciation of the evidence of Smt. Sushila Shukla (P. W. 1), Vivek Shukla (P. W. 2) and Mazdar Hussain (P. W. 3) and the non-applicant has come to the conclusion that the need of the applicant is bona fide and genuine and she has no other accommodation for this purpose and passed the eviction order. ( 5. ) IN the revision it is argued on behalf of the tenant that the applicant has not objectively demonstrated her felt need for the suit accommodation and therefore the impugned order should be set aside. ( 6. ) AFTER perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the R. C. A. is correct. The applicant is proved to have been doing the business of Ankur Lodge just behind the suit accommodation. She wants that the customers coming to the lodge should have direct access from the main road. It is well known that if the lodge has a direct approach from the main road that will be more convenient for the customers. It will attract more customers and result in the increase of business to the applicant, At present the lodge is not visible from the main road and the customers are required to come in rickshaws through the narrow passage. If the shop is made available for this lodge the persons coming to the lodge can part their vehicles outside the lodge on the main road. They can be welcomed and received at the main entrance by the staff working in the lodge. Therefore, it is established that the applicant bona fide requires the suit accommodation for carrying on her own business. The applicant requires the other part of the suit accommodation for the business of her son. He would leave the job and start business therein and thereby he would be able to live with his mother at Jabalpur. There is nothing unusual in it. The applicant requires the other part of the suit accommodation for the business of her son. He would leave the job and start business therein and thereby he would be able to live with his mother at Jabalpur. There is nothing unusual in it. The non-applicants cannot dictate to the applicant to advise her son to continue in his service at Noida nor can the Court give any direction in that behalf. That is the choice of the applicant and her son. The Court can inquire into this aspect only whether the applicant needs the suit accommodation for the business of her son and that need is bona fide. It is not disputed that the applicant or her son has no other non-residential accommodation at Jabalpur for this purpose. On an over all consideration of all the evidence and attendant circumstances the R. C. A. has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant has established the ground for eviction. The finding recorded by him cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable, and therefore, it cannot be interfered with in this revision. ( 7. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that there is no proof that the business of the applicant has expanded and, therefore, it cannot be said that the need is genuine. It is pointed out that the case is not covered within the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Damodar v. Nandram, 1960 MPLJ 925 . This argument is not acceptable. Here the need is not for expanded business but for expansion of business and the new business. In S. S. Gupta v. M. C. Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 , the Supreme Court has referred to the Full Bench decision mentioned above and clarified that the term bona fide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere "desire". The phrase "required bona fide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere "desire". The phrase "required bona fide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. It is further observed that the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. Applying these acid tests to the present case it must be held that the need of the applicant is not the outcome of a whim or fancy but it is the felt need emanating from honest and sincere desire. The applicant is already carrying on the business of a lodge behind the suit accommodation and if she has entertained an intention to increase it by opening the reception on the main road and thereby invite more customers there is nothing unreasonable in doing so. She has objectively demonstrated that her need is genuine. ( 8. ) IT is then argued that it is unlikely that the applicants son would leave a good job which he has secured after doing M. B. A. and would settle in his own business. M. B. A. degree enables a person to do his business more methodically and efficiently. A Master in Business Administration can run his own business on scientific lines and that would be far better for him than working as an employee in some company. The added advantage to Vivck Shukla if he starts his own business at Jabalpur would be that he can be source of strength to his old and widowed mother. He could not be expected to sit idle until he gets possessions of the accommodation. The added advantage to Vivck Shukla if he starts his own business at Jabalpur would be that he can be source of strength to his old and widowed mother. He could not be expected to sit idle until he gets possessions of the accommodation. Again the observations of the Supreme Court in Reghunath v. Chaganlal, (1999) 8 SCC 1 , are very pertinent that a landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign from it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. It is unimaginable that a landlord who is in service should first resign from his job and wait for the unknown or uncertain result of a long drawn litigation. If he resigned from his job, he might indeed end in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back ones premises. It has been further said that the requirement need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive. ( 9. ) THE order of eviction passed by R. C. A. on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case is consistent with the correct legal position. The revisions are dismissed.