1988 JTR(SC) 487
1988 AIR(SC) 1858 ; 1988 2 CalLT(SC) 34 ; 1988 2 CurCC(SC) 441 ; 1988 JLJ 560 ; 1988 3 JT 308 ; 1988 2 KLT(SN) 39 ; 1988 2 RCR(Rent) 261 ; 1988 RLR 519 ; 1988 2 Scale 523 ; 1988 Supp SCC 710 ; 1988 Supp2 SCR 276 ; 1988 2 UJ 512 ; 1988 KHC 688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., L.M. SHARMA, J.
Dilbagrai Punjabi, Appellant
Versus
Sharad Chandra, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 3387 of 1981, D/- 8-8-1988.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.100
MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT : S.12(1)(f)
(A) The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, read with Section 12(1)(f), governs eviction disputes for non-residential accommodations, permitting landlords to seek possession only upon establishing bona fide business necessity and absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that the High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, must examine the entire relevant evidence on record when a substantial question of law arises from the appellate court's failure to consider key facts or misappreciation of evidence, thereby enabling it to interfere and set aside erroneous findings.
(B) Key principles include: the statutory list of limited grounds for eviction; the landlord's burden to prove bona fide business necessity and lack of alternative accommodation; the definition of landlord encompassing those entitled to receive rent; the requirement of proper pleading and evidence to establish title; and the binding value of concurrent factual findings by lower courts, which may be revisited by higher courts on questions of law and evidence.
Facts of the case:
The appellant in possession of a shop in Madhya Pradesh as a tenant under the respondent sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The respondent claimed ownership and necessity for starting a business. The trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit, while the High Court allowed the appeal decreeing eviction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was justified in reversing the lower courts, as they failed to consider relevant evidence, including notices, admissions, and counterfoil receipts indicating the respondent's title. The appellate court erred in not appreciating the evidence and in not considering that a substantial question of law arose on the issue of ownership and necessity.
Issues:
Whether the respondent established ownership of the shop; whether the respondent proved bona fide necessity for the shop for business purposes; whether the High Court was competent to reverse the findings of the lower courts on the evidence; and whether the appeal should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court correctly reversed the lower courts findings upon appreciating the relevant evidence and recognizing a substantial question of law arising under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, given the respondents proven title and necessity for the shop.
Result:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
(A) The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, read with Section 12(1)(f), governs eviction disputes for non-residential accommodations, permitting landlords to seek possession only upon establishing bona fide business necessity and absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that the High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, must examine the entire relevant evidence on record when a substantial question of law arises from the appellate court's failure to consider key facts or misappreciation of evidence, thereby enabling it to interfere and set aside erroneous findings.
(B) Key principles include: the statutory list of limited grounds for eviction; the landlord's burden to prove bona fide business necessity and lack of alternative accommodation; the definition of landlord encompassing those entitled to receive rent; the requirement of proper pleading and evidence to establish title; and the binding value of concurrent factual findings by lower courts, which may be revisited by higher courts on questions of law and evidence.
Facts of the case:
The appellant in possession of a shop in Madhya Pradesh as a tenant under the respondent sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The respondent claimed ownership and necessity for starting a business. The trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit, while the High Court allowed the appeal decreeing eviction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was justified in reversing the lower courts, as they failed to consider relevant evidence, including notices, admissions, and counterfoil receipts indicating the respondent's title. The appellate court erred in not appreciating the evidence and in not considering that a substantial question of law arose on the issue of ownership and necessity.
Issues:
Whether the respondent established ownership of the shop; whether the respondent proved bona fide necessity for the shop for business purposes; whether the High Court was competent to reverse the findings of the lower courts on the evidence; and whether the appeal should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court correctly reversed the lower courts findings upon appreciating the relevant evidence and recognizing a substantial question of law arising under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, given the respondents proven title and necessity for the shop.
Result:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
S.K.Gambhir, S.K.JAIN, S.N.KACKAR, SANJAY SARIN
Judgment
SHARMA. J. :- The appellant is in possession of a shop in a town in Madhyd Pradesh a Pradesh as a tenant under the respondent who filed a suit out of which the present appeal arises for his eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The High Court in second appeal has reversed the decision and passed a decree.
2. The case is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and S. 12(1)(f) deals with the ground of landlords bona fide necessity with reference to buldings let out for non-residential purposes, in the following words :-
"12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :
(a) ...........................
(f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned:
(g)...................."
3. The plaintiff claims that he requires the shop personally for starting a business and it is rightly contended by Mr. Kacker, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that it is essential for him to establish that he is the owner of the premises. A perusal of the language of the cl. (f) and a comparison thereof with that in the other clauses clearly leads to this conclusion. The issue in the case is whether the plaintiff, respondent before us, has been able to establish this condition.
4. The defendant has been admittedly paying the rent to the plaintiff who, therefore, is included in the expression landlord as defined in the Act as a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent whether on his own account or on account of I any other person. In the register of the Municipal Corporation the property stands in the name of the plaintiffs brother Hukum Chand Jain. On this ground the trial court rejected the plaintiffs case that the shop belongs to him. On appeal the Additional District Judge. Gwalior, confirmed the finding mainly on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce the deed of partition which is alleged to have been executed by the parties and under which the house was claimed by the plaintiff to have been allotted to him. The Court also held that since the plaintiff failed to plead his ownership and further neglected to get his plaint amended after his title was denied in the written statement. he was not entitled to rely on any evidence in support of his title. On the plaintiff filing a second appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit.
5. Mr. Kacker strongly urged that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the first two courts was binding on the High Court under S. 100 Civil P.C. and its reversal is illegal. We have gone through all the three judgments and some of the documents placed before us by the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the High Court was fully justified in reversing the finding. The first appellate court was not correct in assuming that the plaintiff had failed to assert in the plaint his ownership of the disputed shop. The necessary pleading is to be found in para 1 of the plaint, which of course was denied in the written statement and the parties led their evidence on this question at the trial. It is true that the partition deed under which the plaintiff claims exclusive title to the property was not produced in court, but the first appellate court was under a duty to consider all the relevant evidence led by the parties along with the circumstances. Unfortunately neither the Civil Judge who tried the suit nor the Additional District Judge confirming the decision of the trial court adverted to important items of relevant evidence which were considered and relied upon by the High Court. The plaintiff, before filing the suit, sent a notice through his counsel, to the appellant in which it was stated that the shop in question belongs to him. In his reply sent through an advocate the appellant, while denying the other statements in the notice, accepted the plaintiffs title in the following words : -
"That it is admitted that my client is occupying the shop situated at Dal Bazar belonging to your client ......."
The plaintiff also produced counterfoil receipts signed by the tenant-appellant in which the plaintiff was described as "the owner of property". It was not a case of an isolated single receipt quite a number of such documents were produced in the trial court. The High Court was right in pointing out that the courts below had seriously erred in not considering the entire evidence on the record including the aforesaid documents. It is true that the High Court while hearing the appeal under S. 100 Civil P.C. has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and reverse the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court, but at the same time its power to interfere with the finding cannot be denied if when the lower appellate court decides an issue of fact a substantial question of law arises. The court is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing on the disputed issue and the error which arises is of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the finding. This is the situation in the present case. We, therefore, do not discover any defect in the judgment of the High Court, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 1858