Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 179 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar Pathak v. Prem Narayan Saxena

2003-01-28

P.C.AGARWAL

body2003
ORDER 1. By impugned order dated 14.9.2001 the learned Rent Controlling Authority ('RCA' for short) has allowed the application of the respondent - a retired Government servant on the ground of bona fide requirement of an accommodation situate in Ashoknagar and has ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Disputed accommodation consists of three rooms and a kitchen of which the petitioner has been a monthly tenant since 1978. 2. As per respondent-landlord, he has his wife, daughter and a son in his family. He has his house at village Athaikheda situate at a distance of about 15 kms. from Ashoknagar. According to him, he himself and his wife being old and their daughter remain sickly and require constant medical observation which is not available a village Athaikheda. Studies of daughter remained incomplete. Son of the respondent has become major and would certainly marry and require additional accommodation. At the present, the respondent has three small rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine only at Ashoknagar which are insufficient for his need and thus, he is unable to shift to Ashoknagar with his family. 3. On the other hand the petitioner has claimed that the respondent had never intended to shift to Ashoknagar Respondent has his agricultural land a village Athaikheda. He already has five rooms of his own in his possession which are lying vacant at Ashoknagar. Had he ever intended to shift to Ashoknagar he would have done so much earlier Respondent has been letting out different portions of the house at Ashoknagar to different persons. Neither the respondent nor his wife is sickly. Medical facilities an available at village Athaikheda also Respondent has filed a civil suit also for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of reconstruction of the house. Thus, he does not require the suit accommodation for his residence. 4. After a protracted inquiry pending since 25.11.1991, after record of statements of the respondent and his witnesses, statements of petitioner and his 6-7 witnesses, the petitioner on 24.4.2001 submitted his written arguments and applied for amendment in his written statement and for taking certain additional documents on record. These application were dismissed by the RCA on the ground that these were filed at a very late stage. 5. Subsequent events sought to be taker on record were (a) Marriage of the daughter (b) Employment of his son as Shikshakarmi at village Athaikheda. These application were dismissed by the RCA on the ground that these were filed at a very late stage. 5. Subsequent events sought to be taker on record were (a) Marriage of the daughter (b) Employment of his son as Shikshakarmi at village Athaikheda. The learned RCA dismissed these applications on the ground that they were highly belated. 6. Certainly, the Court can take cognizance of subsequent events -- P Venkateswaralu v. Motor and General Traders [ AIR 1975 SC 1409 ], Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad [1981 JLJ 716 = (1981) 3 SCC, 103]. Certainly the litigation had proceeded at a very slow speed and changes in the family of the landlord were bound to occur. Certainly, such subsequent events can only be considered with caution -- Amarjit Singh v. Khatoon Quamarain [ AIR 1987 SC 741 ]. Such subsequent events can be considered only when they completely eclipse the need and make the same loose its significance altogether -- Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava [ (2001) 2 SCC 604 ] Vallanlpatikalavathi v. Haji lsmail [ (2001) 4 SCC 26 ]. Certainly, his daughter is married and has gone to her nuptial house. The son is also married and his wife has come with the potential of addition in the family by children taking birth Married daughter could also come to visit her parents. Certainly, employment as a Shikshakarmi in Panchayat is not a permanent service. The petitioner has not disclosed the dates of marriage of the daughter and employment of the son and thus it could not be known as to after how much elapse of time such pleas were taker by the petitioner. Certainly, these were afterthoughts to prolong the litigation and were not taken in right earnest immediately after marriage of the daughter and employment of the son. 7. It is well settled that the landlord has to prove his requirement objectically. His mere desire which may be outcome of whim or fancy cannot be taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. It denotes a certain degree of need with a thrust within demanding fulfilment -- Damodar v Nandaram, [ 1960 JLJ 473 = AIR 1960 MP 345 ], Sarvate T.B. v. Nemichand [1965 JLJ 973], Shivswarup Gupta v. Dr Mahesh Chand Gupta [ (1999) 6 SCC 222 ]. It denotes a certain degree of need with a thrust within demanding fulfilment -- Damodar v Nandaram, [ 1960 JLJ 473 = AIR 1960 MP 345 ], Sarvate T.B. v. Nemichand [1965 JLJ 973], Shivswarup Gupta v. Dr Mahesh Chand Gupta [ (1999) 6 SCC 222 ]. In the present case the landlord besides filing this application under S 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 had also moved the Civil Court for eviction of the petitioner. Certainly, he had taken the ground that he wanted to reconstruct the house. Requirement of reconstruction of the house and bona fide requirement of the same for residence are not opposed to each other. Certainly, the landlord can reside in the house after reconstruction of the same Certainly, the respondent-landlord has three rooms and kitchen etc. in his possession adjacent to the disputed accommodation but these rooms are thatched by tinshed and the petitioner himself suggested that the respondent can shift in the same after some repairs and minor alterations. In other words, the vacant accommodation is not fit to be occupied by the respondent-landlord in its present condition. 8. In these facts and circumstances, if the respondent-landlord requires the eviction of the petitioner, the RCA has not committed any error in allowing his application. Thus, in my considered opinion there has been no illegality impropriety or error in the order passed by the RCA. This Court has not to appreciate or reappreciate the evidence to come to a different view of facts. Certainly, the order passed by the RCA has not been wholly unreasonable or leading to miscarriage of justice. 9. Thus, in my considered opinion, then is no ground for interference in order passed by the RCA. Thus, revision is without any substance and is dismissed with costs. 10. Advocates fee as per schedule.