‘Bona Fide Need’ Can’t Be Doubted If Landlord Does Other Business During Pendency Of Eviction Petition: SC [Read Judgment]

“It would be inappropriate to expect the son of the respondent – landlord to sit idle without doing any work till the eviction petition is decided on the basis of the bona fide requirement.”

The Supreme Court has held that it would be inappropriate to expect that the landowner or his son (for whom the building is required) should sit idle and not to perform any work till the suit for eviction is decided on the basis of bona fide requirement.

In Hukum Chandra vs. Nemi Chand Jain, the landlord had filed suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit shop on the ground of bona fide requirement to settle his son. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the son was already doing an independent business of utensils and he was not unemployed.

The 1^st appellate court reversed these findings and held that it would be inappropriate to expect that the landowner should sit idle and not to perform any work till the suit for eviction is decided on the basis of bona fide requirement. The high court also affirmed the findings of the 1^st appellate court holding that the landlord has established the bona fide requirement for establishing business for his son.

In the appeal filed by the tenant against high court judgment, the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that there is nothing to show that land owner’s son was engaged in the business of utensils at the time of filing of the eviction petition.

Upholding the findings of 1^st appellate court and high court, the bench said: “In the present case, mere fact that Rajendra Kumar was involved in the business of utensils – “Rajendra Bartan Bhandar” a bona fide need of the premises cannot be doubted. It would be inappropriate to expect the son of the respondent – landlord to sit idle without doing any work till the eviction petition is decided on the basis of the bona fide requirement. If there is categorical averment by the respondent that the premises are required for his son Rajendra Kumar; engaging in the business of utensils in the meanwhile, cannot be a ground to deny a decree for eviction.”

Dismissing the appeal, the bench granted three months’ time for the tenant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the land owner.

Read the Judgment Here