Smt. Bano Bai and Others vs Milan Radio Company and Others

S.K. Seth, J.—This is plaintiffs'' appeal against dismissal of their suit for eviction filed against respondents. At this stage before us it is not disputed that Smt. Bano Bai is the widow of Sardar Bhai and appellant No. 2 to 5 are her major sons. It is also undisputed that respondent No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and respondents No. 2A to 4 are partners thereof. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 partnership firm is carrying on business in electrical and electronic goods from rented premises situated in Maharani Road in Indore and the monthly rent of the premises is 1100/-. Previous litigation between the parties relating to eviction of same premises is also an admitted fact which ended in a compromise long back but that is just by the way.

In the present round of litigation, appellants set up two grounds for eviction, viz., (i) non-payment of rent despite service of demand notice; and (ii) bonafide requirement of the suit premises for starting business of appellant No. 3 Iqbal. The grounds set up in the plaint are covered by Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that before us finding recorded against appellants on the ground covered by Section 12(1)(a) is not assailed, therefore, this aspect of the matter need not detain us any longer except to confirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

The only question now survives for our consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court erred in law or on facts in rejecting the ground covered by Section 12(1)(f) of the Act.

Section 12(1)(f) of the Act provides for eviction of a tenant from a non-residential accommodation when the premises are needed bonafide by the Landlord either for himself or major son or unmarried daughter for starting or continuing business and that the landlord has no reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the town or city concerned. Respondents contested the claim set up in the plaint. They denied the alleged need of suit premises for starting Iqbal''s business. According to them the need set up was not a bonafide need. They also denied that appellants had no other reasonably suitable accommodation of their own for the said purpose in the city of Indore. Both sides examined three witnesses each in support of their respective claims. It is trite that for deciding a dispute it is not the quantity but the quality of evidence that matters. Qualitatively, Court below found evidence of respondents more trust-worthy for the cogent reasons. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence, has recorded finding of fact that the appellants could not establish their bonafide need of Iqbal nor was it proved that appellants had no other reasonably suitable accommodation of their own in the town of Indore. On these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

We have heard rival submissions at length. Perused the record. Learned counsel for appellants emphatically argued that that the trial Court did not examine the need in an objective manner; on the contrary it acted as rationing authority forgetting that in the matter of choice, will of the landlord is supreme and no restraint can be put on such a will or choice. He cited various judgments in support of his contentions with which I do not feel necessary to burden this judgment in view of the following discussion.

The law is well settled. In order to succeed u/s 12(1)(f) the landlord has not only to plead that his requirement is genuine but also that he has no reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the city concerned. Trial Court found that both these requirements lacking in the case in hand. Trial Court in its long judgment has considered and discussed every aspect in detail which does not call for repetition. In the case in hand trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence found against the appellants and as such committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Findings recorded by the trial Court are not unreasonable or perverse.

It is relevant to point out that previous suit in respect of the suit shop ended in a compromise where under a shop on the ground floor and basement was let out to the respondents instead of earlier three shops and platform on the front side. Appellants examined Rafeeq (PW1); Iqbal (PW2). Rafeeq is the elder brother of Iqbal. Scrutiny of their evidence shows that most of evidence was pertaining to the previous suit and the portion let out to the tenant. After the previous suit ended in a compromise admittedly the respondent was given on rent a shop on the ground floor and basement area of 10x20 feet for carrying on the business while other shops were let out to other tenants. From the evidence is clear that accommodation in question is situated in Maharani Road and is a business cum residence complex. While tenants are doing business from shops in the front portion, the landlord and family are residing in the back portion of the building. It is also clear from the evidence that at the time of earlier compromise, Iqbal was unemployed. The plaintiffs'' evidence on this aspect of the matter does not inspire confidence to come to a finding that their need is bonafide. That being so all other considerations pale into insignificance. It is also found that the plaintiff could not establish that they had no reasonably suitable accommodation of their own to satisfy the bonafide requirement of Iqbal as provided in Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. Having failed in both aspects the grounds were rightly negative by the trial Court. From the above it seems to us that this appeal has no substance and as such deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel''s fee Rs. 5,000/- if certified.