Holding

A landlord need not disclose residential accommodation or prove its unsuitability; he only must show he has no other reasonably suitable non‑residential accommodation, thereby satisfying Section 12(1)(f).

Summary

The landlord (appellant) sought eviction of a tenant from two shops under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide requirement to start a business for his unemployed son and asserting that he had no other suitable non‑residential accommodation. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the landlord’s claim unsubstantiated; the District Court reversed and allowed eviction, but the High Court set aside that order, holding that the landlord had suppressed the fact that he possessed alternative residential premises and thus failed to prove the bonafide requirement. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a landlord must disclose possession of residential accommodation and prove its unsuitability when invoking Section 12(1)(f). The Court held that the landlord’s only burden is to prove the absence of other reasonably suitable non‑residential accommodation; disclosure of residential premises is irrelevant and not required by the statute. Consequently, the appellant satisfied all ingredients of clause (f) and the High Court’s judgment was set aside, restoring the District Court’s decree in favour of the landlord. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a landlord seeking eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act must disclose any residential accommodation in his possession and prove it is unsuitable for non‑residential use.
Whether the landlord satisfied the statutory requirement of having no other reasonably suitable non‑residential accommodation of his own.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 12(1)(e), s. 12(1)(f), s. 2(a)

Subjects

rent controlevictionbonafide requirementnon‑residential accommodationlandlord‑tenantSection 12Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control ActSupreme Court

Judgment

PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA A
v.
HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI

AUGUST 4, 1999

[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] B

RENT CONTROL & EVICTION:

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Sections 12 (/)
(e) & (f)-Bonafide requirement-Eviction petition filed by landlord to start C
business for unemployed son-Trial Court did not order eviction-First
Appellate Court evicted tenant as it found the ground substantiated-High
Court held, all ingredients of bonafide requirement not proved and presence
of alternative accommodation was suppressed by landlord-On appeal held,
all requirements fulfilled-Presence of alternative residential accommodation D
distinct from non-residential accommodation-No obligation on the part of
landlord to state presence of alternative residential accommodation and
prove it is not suitable for non-residential purposes.

The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of two
shops. The appellant landlord filed two suits in the Court of Civil Judge, E
against the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground
of bonajide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing a business,
stating that he had no alternate and reasonably suitable non-residential
accommodation in the city. The trial Judge concluded that the appellant failed
to prove his bonafide requirement and observed that he had only a desire to F
establish the business for his son.

The appellant filed appeals in the Court of District Judge, which held
that the appellant had proved bonafide requirement and allowed the appeals.

The respondent filed Second Appeal before the High Court which after
framing the question of law concluded that the ~ppellant failed to prove all G
the ingredients of Section 12 (1) (t) of the Madhya 'Fradesh Accommodation
Control Act, 1961 and his claim that he bonafide required the suit premises,
cannot be sustained as he suppressed the fact that he was in possession of
an alternative vacant accommodation, and thus allowed the appeals of the
respondent H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Aggrieved, the appellant has appealed to this Court contending that
.., >'
the High Court fell into an error in re-appreciating the evidence.

The respondent contended that the appellant had in possession two
residential portions which he had let out but he did not plead that he was in
possession of other accommodation and that the same was not suitable for
B non-residential purposes.

Allowing the appeals, the Court
~

HELD: 1.1. The word "accommodation" takes in both residential as
well as non-residential building or part of a building. In Section 12 (1) (e)
c & (f), the expression "accommodation let for residential purposes" and.
"accommodation let for non-residential purposes" are used distinctly in \
clear and unmistakable terms. (5-G)

1.2. A plain reading of the provi!iions makes it clear that the Act
maintains a clear distinction between the accommodation let out for residential
D purposes and non-residential purposes. Clause (e) deals with the ground of
l
..,_ ~
eviction of a tenant from accommodation let for residential purposes, if the
landlord bonafide requires the accommodation let for residential purposes
for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, ..;_
. ~~

provided there is no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation of \

E his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Clause (t) which
deals with ground of eviction of a tenant from accommodation let for non-
residential purposes provides that the tenant can be evicted ifthe landlord
requires accommodation bonafide 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
F is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable suitable
' '-
4
non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or
town concerned. (6-E-F-G-H; 7-A)

Firm Panjumal Dau/a/ram v. Sakhi Gopal, [1977) 3 sec 284 and
Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. RaghunathPraSad, AIR (1981) SC 1711, relied on.
G
2.1. The appellant is to satisfy the CourURent Controller that he or
such person for whom eviction is sought, has no other reasonable suitable
non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or
town concerned. It follows that the landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from
'-
H non-residential accommodation on the ground of bonafide requirement has
P.N. BARCHHIHA v. H. SAIFI [QUADRI, J.] 3
to prove that he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential A
accommodation. [7-E-F-G]
.\
2.2. It is no part of the obligation of the landlord seeking eviction of
a tenant under Section 12 (1) (f) to aver in his plaint/petition the facts that
he is in occupation of residential accommodation and that it is not suitable
for non-residential purposes. These facts are irrelevant to make out any case B
under Section 12 (1) (f) and to read such a requirement in the said clause
would amount to doing violence to the language of the clause and rewriting
the clause which is far beyond the principle of iron out the creases and is
clearly impermissible.

The court cannot burden the land-lord with additional conditions of C
disclosing particulars of residential accommodation in his possession and
proving that it is not reasonably suitable for non-residential purposes.
[7-G-H; 8-A-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 999-1000 of D
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.97 of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in S.A. Nos. 408-409of1989.

S.S. Khanduja, S.S. Dewan and Y.P. Dhingra for the Appellant.
E
B.S. Banthia for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. These appeals, by special leave, are
from the judgments and decrees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at F
Jabalpur in Second Appeal Nos. 408/89 and 409/89 passed on 9. 7.1997. The
appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of two shops in
house Nos. 23/507 and 508 situated at Azad Chowk Handipara, Raipur
(hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises').

On 2.5.85, the appellant filed two suits in the Court of Ilnd Civil Judge G
Class 11, Raipur, agai11st the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises
on the ground of bonajide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing
a Provision Store under Section 12(1 )(f) of the Madhya Pradesh
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). He stated that he had
no alternative reasonable suitable non- residential accommodation in the city
of Raipur for the said purpose. The respondent's plea was one of denial of H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

..· A bonajide requirement of the landlord. After framing necessary issues and
considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the
conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bonafide requirement and

B
observed that he had only a desire to -establish the business for his son. -
However, he recorded the finding that the appellant had no reasonable suitable
accommodation in the Raipur city. Consequently both the suits were dismissed
-·
by the learned Trial Judge by a Common judgmeat on January 27, 1987.
Dissatisfied with that judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appellant
tiled two appeals in the Court of 1st Additional Distt. Judge, Raipur. The
learned District Judge, on appreciating the evidence, held that the appellant
had proved bonajide requirement for establishing a business for his son. In
C that view of the matter he allowed the appeals and decreed the suits against
the respondent on September 6, 1989. The tenant questioned the correctness
of the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge before the High
Court in Second Appeal Nos.408- 409 of 1989.

The High Court, at the time of admission of the Second Appeals, framed
D the following question of law for determination :-
"Whether the Court below was justified in granting a decree under
Section 12(1 )(t) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, under
the facts and circumstances of the case?"

E At the stage of final hearing of the Second Appeals, the following
additional substantial question of law was formulated :-

"Whether respondent has proved all the ingredients of Section 12(1)(f)
of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in order to get a decree
of eviction against the appellant?"
F
The answer to these questions recorded by the High Court is that the
appellant failed to prove all the ingredients of Section 12(1 )(t) of the Act and
his claim that he bonafide required the suit premises, cannot be sustained as
he suppressed the fact that he was in possession of an alternative vacant
G accommodation in the same building. The High Court thus allowed the appeals
of the respondent and dismissed both the suits of the appellant for the same
reasons but by separate judgments dated 9. 7. 97. It is against those judgments
and decrees of the High Court, the present appeals are filed.

Mr. S.S. Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that ...
H the High Court fell into an error in re-appreciating the evidence and answering
P.N. BARCHHIHA v. H. SAIFI [QUADRI, J.) 5
the questions in the negative - against the appellant. The High Col.irt should A
have, submitted the learned counsel, recorded answer to the questions on the
basis of the facts found by the 1st Appellate Court.

Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, argued
that the appellant/landlord, before filing the eviction petition, had in his
possession two residential portions of the hou~e which he let out to others B
but he did not plead that he was in possession of other accommodation and
that it was not suitable for non-residential purposes so the High Court was
right in coming to the conclusion that as the appellant suppressed the facts
his plea for bonafide personal requirement could not be accepted.

On the contention urged before us, the question that needs to be C
adverted to is :-

"Whether it is incumbent upon a landlord, seeking eviction of the
accommodation let out for non-residential purposes under Section
12(l)(f) of the Act to disclose if he is in possession of residential D
accommodation and further prove that it is not suitable for non-
residential purposes."

The definition of 'accommodation' in Section 2(a) of the Act, reads as
under:-

"2(a). "accommodation" means any building or part of a building, E
whether residential or non-residential and includes -

(i) any land which is not being used for agricultural purposes;
(ii) garden, grounds, garages and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to
such building or part of the building; F
1.
(iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the
more beneficial enjoyment thereof;

(iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building
or part of a building."
G
The word 'accommodation' takes in both residential as well as non-
residential building or part ofa building. In Section 12(l)(e)&(t), the expressions
'accommodation let for residential purposes' and 'accommodation let for non-
residential purposes' are used distinctly in clear and unmistakable terms.

Now, it will be apt to refer to Clauses (e) and (f) of Section 12(1) of the H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

_A Act which run as under :
"12(1). Restriction on eviction of tenants - (l). 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
B grounds only namely :-

(a) to (d). **** **** ****

(e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required ... _

bonajide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or
c for any member of his family, 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 residential
accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town
concerned;
D (t) that the accommodation let for non- residential purposes is required
bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his
business or that 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
E other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own
in his occupation in the city or town concerned."

A plain reading of the provisions, extracted above, makes it clear that
the Act maintains a clear distinction between the accommodation let for
residential purposes and the accommodation let for non-residential purposes.
F Clause (e) deals with ground of eviction of a tenant from accommodation let
for residential purposes. Under this clause eviction of a tenant can be sought
ifthe landlord bonafide requires the accommodation let for residential purposes ·-
for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family,
provided he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the
G accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other
reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation
in the city or town concerned. Clause (t) which deals with ground of eviction
of a tenant from accommodation let for non-residential purposes and provides
that the tenant can be evicted if the landlord requires accommodation let for
non-residential purposes bonafide for the purpose of continuing or starting
H his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he
P.N. BARCHHIHA v. H. SAIFI [QUADRI, J.] 7
is the owner thereof or for any person for who:;e benefit the accommodation A
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. They [clauses (e) and (f)] are thus distinct and independent
grounds having different ingredients and are thus mutually exclusive. That,
this is the purport of the said provisions, has been endorsed by this Court B
in Firm Panjumal Daulatram v. Sakhi Gopal, [1977] 3 SCC 284 and in Hasmat
Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR ( 1981) SC 1711.

Now the ingredients of clause (t), with which we are concerned here,
are:

(1) the accommodation from which the tenant is sought to be evicted C
has been Jet ouf for non-residential purposes;

(2) the landlord is the owner thereof and requires that accommodation
bonajide for the purpose of continuing or starting (i) his business
or (ii) business of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters;
or D

(3) the landlord requires the accommodation for any person for
whose benefit the accommodation is held by him; and

(4) the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable
non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in E
the city/town concerned.

Admittedly, here requirements (I) and (2) are satisfied (2 and 3 are
alternative). In regard to ( 4) what is necessary for the appellant is to satisfy
the Court/Rent Controller that he or such person for whom eviction is sought,
has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own F
in his occupation in the city or town concerned. On this aspect the learned
Distt. Judge correctly recorded the finding in favour of the appellant. It
follows that the landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from non-residential
accommodation on the ground that he required the same for the purpose of
continuing or starting his business or that any of his major sons or unmarried G
daughters, has to prove that he has no other reasonably suitable non-
residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town.
It is no part of the obligation of the landlord seeking eviction of a tenant
under Clause (t) of Section 12(1) of the Act to aver in his plaint/petition the
facts that he is in occupation of residential accommodation and that it is not
suitable for non-residential purposes. These facts are not the requirement of H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A clause (f) and are irrelevant to make out a case under that clause. To read such
a requirement in the said clause (f) would amount to doing violence to the
language of the clause nay rewriting the clause which is far beyond the
principle of iron out the creases and is clearly impermissible.

It is futile to contend that accommodation is a neutral word taking in
B its fold both residential as well as non-residential purposes, the landlord
ought to disclose the residential accommodation in his possession and show
that it is not reasonably suitable for non- residential purposes when he is
seeking eviction of the tenant from accommodation let for non-residential
purposes. The Court cannot burden the landlord with additional conditions
C of disclosing particulars of residential accommodation in his possession and
proving that it is not reasonably suitable for non-residential purposes. Non-
suiting him on such grounds will mean non-suiting him on extraneous grounds.
It follows that the appellant has fulfilled the fourth requirement of clause (f)
also. I,
•
D It is, however, contended that there is no provision in the Act which
prohibits use of the residential accommodation let for non- residential purposes,
therefore, it is the duty of the landlord to show if he has in possession
residential accommodation, even when he is seeking eviction of tenant for
non-residential accommodation. Neither on principle nor on authority can
such a contention be countenanced. We have no hesitation in rejecting the
E same.

From the above discussion, it follows that the appellant has satisfied
all the requirements of clause (t) of Section 12(1) of the Act. The impugned
judgments and decrees of the High Court on this aspect are, therefore,
F erroneous and are liable to be set aside.

We accordingly set aside the impugned judgments and decrees of the
High Court and restore the orders of the 1st Appellate Court dated 6.9.89. The
appeals are allowed and the suits of the appellant for eviction of the respondent
from suit premises are decreed. There shall be no order as to costs.
G
A.Q. Appeals allowed.