http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CHANAN LAL AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. AZIZUNISHA

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1990

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (2) 567        1990 SCC  (2) 635  JT 1990 (2)   166        1990 SCALE  (1)803

ACT:     M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. S.  12(D(f)--Bona- fide  requirement--Comparative hardship of  landlady----High Court ordering eviction--Interference declined.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent landlady sought eviction of the appellant under  s.  12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation  Control  Act, 1961  on the ground of bona fide requirement 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  accommoda- tion in his possession 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 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 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  land- lady  with no injury 40 the tenant except that he  shall  be required  to  carry on business from one shop only,  do  not call  for  interference with the order of  the  High  Court. [569A-E]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3488  of 1988.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 14.7.  1988  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 17 of 1985. 568     G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher and Atul Nanda for the Appellants. Pramod Swarup for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     R.M. SAHAI, J. This tenant’s appeal is directed  against order  passed  by Madhya Pradesh High Court  in  proceedings arising  out of Section 12(1)(f) of the  M.P.  Accommodation Control Act, 1961.     In 1976, the landlady filed an application for  eviction under  Section 12(1)(f) of the Act as the  accommodation  in occupation of appellant was required bona fide for  continu- ing  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  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..It 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 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 evidence  it found that the business of landlady’s  son  was very poor and not growing at all. Therefore, the  accommoda- tion  in  his  possession was not at  all  insufficient  and unsuitability  was also not proved. 1n 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 with finding of fact in second appeal. Defence was equally  vehement. But it appears unnecessary to examine  it as out of various aspects highlighted one was sufficiency of accommodation  with  tenant even if he vacated the  shop  in dispute. Since it was not 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  accommo- dation  and  the status of the tenant.  Without  going  into status as that is disputed it 569 is apparent rather undisputed that landlady whose husband at one  time  had flourishing business is now in  dire  circum- stances.  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 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 accom- modation 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 latrines of other houses open. Therefore,  on  the one  hand  is the tenant in occupation of two big  rooms  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

which  he  is carrying on business 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  landlady with no injury  to  the  tenant except  that he shall be required to carry on business  from one  shop  only are circumstances which prevent  this  Court from interfering with the order of the High Court as in  our opinion  substantial justice has been done between  parties. Therefore  it  appears unnecessary to examine  if  the  High Court committed any error in exercise of jurisdiction  under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code.     In  the  result the appeal fails and is  dismissed.  But there shall be no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                                Appeal dismissed. 570