Chhattisgarh High Court

SA/474/2003 of MADAN SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs SUDHIR KUMAR AGRAWAL on 19 December 2003

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH IKE Q3“ Madan Singh, Aged about 65 years Slo Mual Singh Skh Rlo Gondpara Bilaspur (C.G) Surendra Singh ilas Babi, Aged about 3O years S/o Madan Singh Sikh Rlo Gnadpara Bilaspur (C.G) SECOND APPEAL No LC‘v Kx OF 2003. Sudhir

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARHIKEQ[3“]SECOND APPEAL NoLC‘v KxOF 2003.MAPPELLANTs'\Madan Singh, Aged about 65 years/DEFENDANT§C:Slo Mual Singh Skh Rlo GondparaBilaspur (C.G)WSurendra Singh ilas Babi, Agedabout 3O years S/o Madan SinghSikh Rlo Gnadpara Bilaspur (C.G)VERSESRESPONDENT1.Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Aged aboutPLAINTIFF4 years Slo Harrihar PrasadAgrawal Rlo Saraswati NagarPratap Chowk Bilaspur (C.G.)7~/SECOND APPELA UNDER SECTION100 OF THE CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR

SecondNo.474/2003 meal

MadanSinghandOthersVSSudhirKumar Agrawal

JUDGMENT

Postfor:\q/l2/2003Sd/—FakhrdinudJudge$0”$®$\g\\fl’\°q7

HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BIT‘ASPUR

Second APPaalNO . 474/2003

MadamSinghandOLheL‘s

SudhirKumarAg rawal

ShriShaileshAhuja,Counselfortheappellants .

ShriShrikumarAgrawal,SeniorCounsel,withShriSanjayK.AgrawalandShriAnandGupta,Advocates,fortherespondent.

JUDGMENT

PerFakhrizddin ,J :

Page 1 of 8

Theappellantshavepreferredthisappealagainstthejudgmentanddecreedated30.07.2003passedinCivilAppealNo.12—A/2003byThirdAdditionalDistrictJudge,Bilaspurarisingoutofthejudgmentanddecreedated30.6.2003passedbytheThirdCivilJudge,Class—II,Bilaspur.incivilsuitNo.242-A/2002 .2.Brieflystatedthefactsofthecasethattherespondenthadfiledasuitforevictionbeforethet rialcourtonthegroundthattherespondent/plaintiffistheowner/landlordandtheappellantsaretenantsofthesaidpremises/non—residentialaccommodation.Itwasstatedthattheletoutaccommodation wasnorrresidential.Thearea hasbeenshownintheplaint.Therespondentcontendedthathepurchasedthepropertythroughregisteredsaledeedon17.05.2001andtheappellantNo.1wastenant.Theevictionottheaccommodationwassoughtonthegroundofbonafiderequirement,whichwasinpossessionofthetenant.Itwassubmittedthattherespondentandhiswifebothareadvocatesandtheydonothaveanyothernon—residentialaccommodationoftheirowninthecity.Thetenantdeniedtheclaimandcontendedthattherequirementshownbytheplaintiff1'snotbonafideasalternativeaccommodationisavailabletohim.3.Thelearnedtrialcourtframed6issues.Sofarassub—tenancyisconcerned,thetrialcourtheldthatitwasnotproved.Thetenantisusingthepremisesforimmoralandun-lawfulactivities.Thebonafideissueisfoundtobeproved.SofarasissueNo.2i‘sconcerned,thetrialcourtconsideringtheevidenceonrecordarrivedtoaconclusionthattheplaintiffisinbonafiderequirementoftheaccommodationandthatnootherreasonable/suitableaccommodationisavailabletohim.Findinghasbeenrecordedinparagraph—26ofthejudgmentofthetrialcourt,in which itisheldthattherespondentisanadvocateandsomehowheiscarryingonhisprofessionofadvocacyinthedrawingroom,whichis causinggreatinconveniencetothefamily.Itisalsorecordedthatthereisnoothernon—residentialacuommodaLLonavailablet0LheplainLi££inLheciLy0tBiiaapur.4.Thedefendants/appellantspreferredanappealbeforethelowerappellatecourt.Learnedlowerappellatecourthasconsideredthelegalandfactualaspectsofthematter.Thelowerappellatecourtdiscussedandconsideredinparagraphs12,13,14,15andcateqoricalfindinqshavebeenrecordedinpara16.Theappealfiledbythedefendantswasdismissedbythelowerappellatecourt.5.Theappellantshavepreferredthisappealcontendingthatitinvolvedthefollowingsubstantialquestionsoflaw:

Page 2 of 8

(i) WhetherthelearnedcourtbelowhaveresultedintheerrorofjusticewhileignoringtheevidenceofappellantNo . 2challengingthebona-fiderequirementoftherespondentwhichgoestotherootofthecase.(ii)WhetherthelearnedcourtbelowerredintotallyoverlookingtheimportantaspectthattheappellantNo.1wastenantpriortothepurchaseoftheshopinquestionsincelast20yearsandrecentlyshopwaspurchasedondated17.05.2001byrespondentwithouttheirbeinganybona-fiderequirement.(xiii)Whetherthecourtsbelowthoughhaveheldthatsubtenancywasnotneitherdefaultinproved, paymentofrentwasthereonpartofappellantsnoranyillegalbusinessesweredonebythem,yetallowedthesuitofRespondentignoringvaluableevidencepertainingtootheralternativeaccommodationavailabletothere spondent .

6. Learnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthatthejudgmentanddecreepassedbythecourtbelowisnotsustainable.Sofarasthequestionofbonafiderequirementisconcerned,thecontentionoflearnedcounselisthattheotheraccommodationisavailabletotheplaintiff.7.Learnedcounselforthe appellantsrelieduponthedecisioninthecaseofJoginderPalvs.NavalKishoreBehal.reportedin(2002)SupremeCourtCase397,whereinithasbeenheldasunder:

“Thecourtsshouldadoptareasonableandbalancedapproachwhileinterpretingrentcontrollegislationsandassumethatequaltreatmenthasbeenmetedouttoboth,thetenantsandlandlords—~Althoughrentcontrolstatu@s( leaninfavouroftenants,courtsmuswtleaninfavouroflandlordswhileinterpretingthoseprovisionswhichtakecareoflandlord’sinterestFurtherheld,suchprovisionsareenactedtotakecareofsituationswherethelandlordsaretooweakandfeebleandfeelhumble—EastPunjabUrbanRentRestrictionsAct,1949(3of1949),S.l3(3) (a) (ii) (a)”

8. LearnedcounselfurtherreliedonadecisioninthecaseofIshwarDasJain(dead)throughLRsvs.

SohanLal(dead)byLRs,reportedinAIR2000SC

426,whereinithas,beenheldasunder:

Page 3 of 8

“Therearetwosituationsinwhichinterferencewithfindingsoffactispermissible[.]Thetirstoneiswhenmaterialorrelevantevidenceisnotconsideredwhich,ifconsideredwouldhaveledtoanoppositeconclusion.ThishasbeenlaidinrelationtoprincipleSection100,CPCafterthe1976amendment.Thesecondsituationinwhichinterferencewithfindingsoffactispermissibleiswhereafindinghasbeenarrivedatbytheappellatecourtbyplacingrelianceoninadmissibleevidencewhichifitwasomit t ed,anapparentcone lus ionwaspossible.lneitheroftheabovesituations,asubstantialquestionoflawcan.arise.Thesubstantialquestionoflawthatarisesfor“whetherconsiderationinthisappealis:theCourtsbelowhadfailedtoconsidervitalofevidenceandwhetherthepiecesCourtsrelieduponinadmissibleevidencewhilearrivingattheconclusionthatthemortgagewasshamandthattherewasnorelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantasmortgagorandmortgageebutrealrelationshipwasaslandlordandtenant?point1isdecidedaccordingly.”

9. LearnedcounselfortherespondentontheotherhandhasrelieduponthedecisionoftheApexCourtinthecaseofShivSarupGuptavs.Dr.MaheshChandGuptareportedin(1999)6SCC222,whereinithas beenheldasunder:

“Thetermbonafideorgenuinelyreferstoastateofmind.Requirementisnotameredesire.Thedegreeofintensity“requires”contemplatedbyismuchmorehigherthaninmeredesire.Thephrase\\requiredbonafide”issuggestiveoflegislativeintentthata meredesirewhich s istheoutcomeofwhimorfancyisnottakennoteofbytherentcontrollegislation.Arequirementinthesenseoffeltneed whichisanoutcomeofasincere,honestdeaireincontradistinctionwithamerepretenceorpretexttoevictatenantonthepartorthelandlordclaimingtooccupythepremisesforhimselforforanymemberofthefamilywouldentitlehimtoseekejectmentofthetenant...”

IntheaforesaidcaseinPara13,itwasfurtherobservedthat :[—]

"...Once

Page 4 of 8

thecourtissatisfiedofthebonafidesoftheneedofthelandlord,forthepremisesoradditionalpremisesbyapplyingobjectivestandardstheninthematterofchoosingoutofmorethanoneaccommodationavailabletothelandlordhissubjectivechoiceshallberespectedbytheCourt.TheCourtwouldpermitthelandlordtosatisfytheprovenneedbychoosingtheaccommodationwhichthelandlordfeelswouldbemostsuitedforthepurpose;thecourtwouldnotinsuchacasethrustitsownwisdomuponLhechoiceofLhelandlordbyholdingthatnotonebuttheotheraccommodationmustbeacceptedbythelandlordtosatisfyhissuchneed.Inshort,theconceptofbonafideneedorgenuinerequirementneedsapracticalapproachinstructedbythere alit iesoflife .Anapproacheithertooliberalortooconservativeorpedanticmustbeguardedagainst .[”]

10. LearnedcounselfortherespondenthasfurtherrelieduponthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseofHatNarainDagavs.HeeralalandOthersreportedin(2001)1SupremeCourtCases41,whereinithasbeenheldthat:

“Bona—fiderequirementoflandlordHeld,\\isessentiallyaquestionoffact—a i\

Concurrentfindingsoffacthavingbeenrecordedbybothlowercourts(thattenantedaccommodationlocatedongroundfloorofrespondentlandlord’sresidentialbuildingwasrequiredforneedsofhisgrowingsons;alsoforholdingprivatetuitionclassestorhisstudents),held,HighCourtwasjustifiedinnotinterferingandindismissingappellanttenant’ssecond—appealRajasthanPremises(ControlofRentandEviction)Act,1950(l7of1950),S.l3(l)(h)~CivilProcedureCode,1908,3.100”

11. LearnedcounselfortherespondenthasalsorelieduponthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthe.caseofRamf’rasadRajakvs.NandKumar&Bros.&Anr.reportedinJT1998(5)SC540,whereinithasbeen heldasunder:

“Section100—Secondappeal-FindingoffactarrivedatbyfirstappellateCourt~QuestionofbonafiderequiremenL—HighCourtre—appreciatingtheevidenceandrecordingafindingthatvbonatidenecessitynotestablished—HeldthatHighCourthasexceededitsjurisdictioninappreciatingevidenceandininterferinginthefindoffact.”

12 . .Learned

12 . .LearnedcounselfurtherrelieduponthejudgmentofApexCourtinthecaseofPremNarayanBarchhjhavs.HakimuddingSaifi,reportedinAIR1999SupremeCourt2450,whereinithasbeenheldas under:

Page 5 of 8

“Itisnopartoftheobligationofthelandlordseekingevictionofatenantunderol.(f)ofS.12(1)oftheActtoaverinhisplaint/petitionthefactsthatheisinoccupationofresidentialaccomuodationand \

thatitisnotsuitablefornon—residentialpurposes.Thesefactsarenottherequirementofcl.(f)andareirrelevanttomakeoutacaseunderthatClause.ToreadsucharequiremenLinLhesaidcl. (f)wouldamounttodoingviolencetothelanguageoftheclausemayrewritingtheclausewhichisfarbeyondtheprincipleofironoutthecreasesandisclearlyimpermissible.Itisfutiletocontendthataccommodationisaneutralwordtakinginitsfoldbothresidentialaswellasnon-residentialpurposes,thelandlordoughttodisclosetheres identialaccommodationinhispossessionandshowthatitisnotreasonablysuitablefornon—residentialpurposeswhenheisseekingevictionofthetenantfromaccommodationletfornon-residentialpurposes[.]TheCourtcannotburdenthelandlordwithadditionalconditionsofdisclosingparticularsofresidentialaccommodationinhispossessionandprovingthatitisnotreasonablysuitablefornon—residentialpurposes.Non—suitinghimonsuchgroundswillmeannon—suiting him onextraneousgrounds.”

13. InViewoftheoflaw,itisposition Wnecessarytoexaminethefactsofthepresentcase.l4.Thefacts,whichhavebeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtandnotdisputedarethattheplaintiffrespondentSudhirKumarAgrawalisanAdvocateandispracticingsince1981.HiswifeisalsoanAdvocate.Therespondenthadplaintiffearliertheofficeadjoiningtothesuitaccommodationandhewascarryingonhislegalprofessioninthearea8x8ft.Ithadfallendownand.asaresultthereofhestartedpracticinginthedrawingroomofhishousebyeffectingwooden \

Page 6 of 8

partitioninthearea9X9ft.Hepurchasedthison17.05.2001.Itisstatedby theplaintiffthatitisverydifficultforhimLocarryonhislegalprotessioninthedrawingroomwhereheandhisfamilymembersareliving.Thisiscausinggreathardship.Thesuitaccommodationislargerinareaandisincommercialarea.Theplaintiffdoesnotownanyothernon—residentialaccommodation.Thedefendantsmaincontentionisthattheareasoughttobeevictedfromthetenantisnot @rh’géiIt1'scontendedthattheplaintiff’sresidencewhereheiscarryingonhislegalprofessionismoresuitablethan“thesuitaccommodation.Thedefendantswanttheplaintifftocarryonlegalprofessioninthere s ident ialaccommodat ion .15.TheCourtbelowhasconsideredingreatdetailinpara12ofthejudgment.intheOpinionofthisCourtaswell,itislandlord whoisthebestjudge.TheCourtshavetosubstantiatethebonafideneedandtheneedoftheplaintiff.Applyingitstest,thechoicehastobethatofthelandlord.Inthepresentfactsandcircumstancesofthecase,itisthelandlord whoseChoicehastoberespected by theCourt.TheCourtwouldpermitthelandlordtosatisfytheprovenneedbychoosingtheaccommodation whichthelandlordfeels wouldbemosts suitedforthepurpose:theCourtwouldnotinsuchacasethrustitsownwisdomuponthechoiceofthelandlordbyholdingthatnotonebutLheotheraccommodationmustbeacceptedbythelandlordtosatisfyhissuchneed.TheSupremeCourtinthecaseofShivSarupGupta(supra)hasheldthattheconceptofbonafideneedorgenuinerequirementneedsapracticalapproachinstructedbytherealitiesoflife.Anapproacheithertooliberalortooconservativeorpedanticmustbe%uardedxagainst.

l6.Itwillbeappropriatetogotthroughtheevidence.Theplaintiffisaregisteredadvocate.ExhibitP—25isaregistration certificateissued bytheStateBarCouncilofMadhyaPradesh.HiswifeisalsoanadvocateandExhibitP-26isaregistrationcertificateissuedbytheStateBarCouncilofMadhyaPradesh.Inpara—26,hehasstatedthatheiscarryingonhislegalprofessioninthedrawingroom and haspartitioneditby woodenalmirahandfurnitureitself.Thisheiscarryingonundercompulsion.Thereisnofacilityoflight,waterandbathroom.Inpara—27,hestatedthatheiscarryingonhisprofessionfromSeptember, there1999ashisearlierofficehadcollapsed.Hehadtoshifttothedrawingroomashisearlieroffices beingdilapidatedfallendown.Inpara—28,headmittedthatclientsareabletoreachtohisefflcebutbyasking.Inpara-29,hehasstatedthatheistindingitvery ditticulttocarry onthelegalprofession.Hefurtherstatedthatthesuitaccommodationisonthemainroadandthatwillbechq¥4% facilitatehimtocarryontheprofessionandfurtherthathisdrawingroom wouldbeavailableforliving,asitisverydifficultfortheguestswhocometogetthem evenseated.17.DW—1MadanSinghinpara—15hasstatedthatitistruethattheplaintiffhadservedthenoticeforvacation.Hestatedthathecannotsayastowhethertheplaintiffhasanyothernon—residentialaccommodationinBilaspurCity.Inpara—16,hehasadmittedthatitistruethattheplaintiffhasmadeachamberbypartition.Healsostatedthatthechamberisbigone.Hedeniedthatthechamberoftheplaintiffisinthearea9x9ft.Ilehasadmittedthattheportionofthedrawingroom,whichissituatedbehindtheisnotvisiblepartition,fromthechamber.Inpara-17,hehasadmittedthattheplaintiffhasthreechildren.Inpara—22,hehasadmittedthatearliertheofficeoftheplaintiffwasinPratapChowk.Inpara-25,hehas statedthathehashisownhouseatGonpara;whichisbigonehavingareaof2400sq.ft.18.InViewofthecategoricaladmissionofLhedetendantMadanSinghinpara—l6,theditticuities,whicharebeingfacedbytheplaintiff,canwellbeappreciated .

Page 7 of 8

l9.ThetrialCourtandthelowerappellateCourtconsideredtheevidenceingreatdetail.ThisCourthasalsoconsideredtheevidenceasdiscussedhereinabove.InViewoftheevidenceonrecord,thefindingsrecordedregardingbonafidearejustandproper.Nointerferenceiscalledfor.Thoquestionoflaw,whichhasbeenformulatedthattheevidencehasbeenconsideredignoringtheevidenceofappellantNo.2,cannotbesaidtobeaquestionoflawastheevidencehasbeenproperly[considered.]Likewise,thequestionNo.2thatthetenantislivingsince20yearsorsohasnothingtodowiththerequirement .Itisrequirementoftheplaintiff/landlord,whichhastobeconsideredandthefactthatheislivingfrom2Dyearsorsohasnobearingatall.ThequestionNo.3thatthesuitoftheplaintiff/respondenthasbeenallowedignoringthevaluableevidencepertainingtoother‘alternativeaccommodationavailabletohim cannotbeisaidtobeaquestionoflawastheevidencehas \

beenproperlyconsidered.Noneofthesequestionsaresubstantialquestionso£law.TheexistsnseofsubsLanLialguesLionsoflawisasine—qua—nvnandthatbeingnotthere,nocaseforinterferenceunderSection100C.P.C.Vismadeout.'gO.Atthisstage,ShriShaileshAhuja,learned3counselfortheappellants,submitsthatsometimemaybegrantedtotheappellantstovacatethesuitLearnedcounselfortherespondentpremises.submitsthatcertaintermsbeimposed.2’].Havingthusconsidered,endsofjusticewouldisorvodbeifthreemonthstimeisgrantedtothetenants/appellantstovacatethepremisesindisputetotheandhandoverthevacantpeacefulpossessionlandlord/respondentsubjecttothefollowing conditions:

(i) '1'hattheappellants/tenantsshallfurnishanundertakingdulysupportedbyanaffidavitwithinonemonthfromtodaytotheeffectthattheyshallvacatethepremisesindisputeandhandoverthevacantpeacefulon orbefore18thofMarch,possession2004tothelandlord/respondent.

(ii) Thatthetenants/appellantsshalldepositallarrearsofrent,ifany,withinonemonthfromtodayandtheyshallcontinuetodepositmonthlyrenttilltheaccommodationisvacated.

(iii‘)ThaLiftheundertakingisnotcompliedwithandtheaccommodation,\asdirectedabove,isnotvacated\withinthespecifiedtime,thenin\\

R/Hande

fgIsCAh%:

thatsituation,theexecutingshallproceedwiththematteraccordance withlaw fetthwith.

Courtin

22 . .

22 . .InView0fwhaLhasbeensLaLedabove,theappealtailsandisdismissed.

CounSelfeeasperscale.

Sw—FakhruddinJudge

m¥i2~2003

Page 8 of 8

Loading citations and judicial treatment…