Holding

The landlady’s bona‑fide requirement is genuine and the High Court’s order stands; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The respondent landlady filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to continue her son’s tailoring business. The trial court upheld the claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the son’s business was poor and the accommodation was not insufficient. On second appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinstated the eviction, finding the landlady’s need genuine and the shop inadequate for the required machinery and helpers. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had erred in its factual findings and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed the landlady’s dire financial circumstances, the inadequacy of the shop, and the tenant’s possession of two spacious rooms, concluding that substantial justice had been done and there was no ground to interfere. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the landlady’s claim of a bona‑fide requirement under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is valid.
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the High Court’s factual findings and jurisdiction in a second appeal under the Act.
Whether the tenant is entitled to relief from eviction despite the landlady’s asserted hardship.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 12(1)(f)

Subjects

evictionbona fide requirementaccommodation controllandlord‑tenanthardshipSupreme CourtMadhya PradeshSection 12(1)(f)housing law

Judgment

CHANAN LAL AND ORS.
A
v.
SMT. AZIZUNISHA
------ ~
APRIL 20, 1990

[T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND R.M. SARAI, JJ.] 8

M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: S. 12(1)(f)-Bonafide
'_f' requirement-Co"Jparative hardship of landlady-High Court ordering
eviction-Interference declined.
.....,. ..
The respondent landlady sought eviction of the appellant under s.
12(1)(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground of c
bona fide requir,,ment for continuing tailoring business of her son,
being carried on in a small room of the same premises. The trial court
accepted the claim. The appellate court, however, allowed the appeal
on the ground that the business of the landlady's son was very poor and
not growing at all and, therefore, the accommodation in his possession
D
was not at all insufficient. The High Court found that the need of the
landlady was genuine and bona fide.
Dismissing the tenant's appeal, this Court,
HELD: The landlady whOse husband at one time had a flourishing
business was now in dire circumstances. To keep both the ends meet the
E
family depended not only on meagre income from rent and tailoring
shop but the landlady had even to part with possession of another room
of the same house adjacent to the shop in dispute to another tenant.
Financial difficulty apart, the tenant admittedly had two shops each
with spacious accommodation facing the road while the landlady's son
had one with comparatively small and irregular dimension in a lane in
F
most unhygienic conditions, with not enough place for 3 or 4 machines
with two or three helpers, what to say of trial room or other facilities for
customers. The pathetic and pitiable condition of the landlady with no
injury to the tenant except that be shall be required to carry on business
from one shop only, do not call for interference with the order of the
High Conrt. [569A-EJ
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3488
of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7 .1988 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 17 of 1985.
H

.567
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher and Atul Nanda for
A the Appellants.
- --
Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
R.M. SABAi, J. This tenant's appeal is directed against order
passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in proceepings arising out of
Section 12( l)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

In _1976, the landlady filed an application for eviction under Sec-
tion 12( l)(f) of the Act as the accommodation in occupation of appel-
C !ant was required bona fide for continuing tailoring business of her
son who was doing it since 1970 in a small room of the same premises
in the lane which was both unsuitable and inadequate. Her claim was
accepted by the Trial Court as necessity was valid and the landlady had
a right to reside in any part of the house. In appeal various objections
D raised on behalf of tenant, namely, feasibility of shifting business to
one more room in the house or that additional accommodation was
available were repelled . .Jt was further found that landlady's husband
had a flourishing tailoring business during British days but it suffered
setback and he later became blind. The appeal was, however, allowed
and the application was dismissed as in opinion of Appellate Court the
E Trial Court had incorrectly understood the dimension of the shop. It
did not find any merit in the submission that the shop was irregularly
built and was unsuitable for doing business. After discussing the evi-
dence it found that the business of landlady's son was very poor and
not growing at all. Therefore, the accommodation in his possession
was not at all insufficient and unsuitabi,lity was also not proved. In
F Second Appeal by the landlady the High _Court did not agree with the
Appellate Court and found that the need of the landlady was genuine
and bona fide as the shop in dispute was not sufficient for four
machines and two or three servants.

Principal attack was on jurisdiction of High Court to interfere
G wllh finding of fact in second appeal. Defence -was equally vehement.
But it appears unnecessary to examine it as out ot various aspects
highlighted one was sufficiency of accommodation with tenant even if \
- --( -
he vacated the shop in dispute. Since it was ncit clear from order of any
Court time was granted on conclusion of argument to learned counsel
for parties to file affidavit explaining the extent of accommodation and
Itt the status of the tenant. Withou_t going.into status as that is disputed it
CHANAN LAL v. SMT. AZIZUNJSHA [SAHA!, J.] 569

is apparent rather undisputed that landlady whose husband at one time A
had flourishing business is now in dire circumstances. To keep both the
ends meet the family depends not only on meagre income from rent
and tailoring shop but the landlady had even to part with another room
of the same house adjacent to shop in dispute to one Rataley which is
now in possession of tenant. Financial difficulty apart the tenant
admittedly has not only this shop with 27'6'' on one side and 20' on the B
other, but another shop of approximately the same dimension. May be
the wall in between the two rooms has been removed and entire has
been converted into a big shop. But the tenant has two shops each with
spacious accommodation facing the road and the landlady's son has
one with irregular dimension of 10'9'' in front and 3.8' in back in a lane
in most unhygienic conditions, in front of which many doors of c
latrines of other houses open. Therefore, on the one hand is the tenant
in occupation of two big rooms in which he. is carrying on business
·--f-. luxuriously whereas the landlady's son is sandwiched in back of her
own house in unhealthy surroundings with not enough place for 3 or 4
machines with two or three helpers what to say of trial room or other
facilities for customers. The pathetic and pitiable condition of the D
landlady with no injury to the tenant except that he shall be required
to carry on business from one shop only are circu1nstances which pre-
vent this Court from interfering with the order of the High Court as in
our opinion substantial justice has been done between parties. There-
-f fore it appears unnecessary to examine if the High Court committed
any error in exercise of jurisdiction under Section JOO Civil Procedure E
Code.
•
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be
no order as to costs.

P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.