Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Vyas vs Smt. Parwati Bai on 7 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
SECOND APPEAL No. 368 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
PRAMOD VYAS S/O LATE SHRI K.C. VYAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: H.NO 73 PRABHUNAGAR, IDGAH, HILLS BHOPAL H.NO.80
IBRAHIMPURA, TALAIYA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
MUKESH AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI BRIJMOHAN AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT
39 YEARS, H.NO. 80, IBRAHIMPURA, TALAIYA ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI K.L. GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
Reserved on: 24.01.2024
Pronouned on: 07.02.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Second Appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Gajendra Singh
pronounced the following:
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has
been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 by First
Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in
regular Civil Appeal No.4-A/2010 arising out of judgment and decree dated
29.11.2010 in Civil Suit No.685-A/2009 by 7th Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal.
2. Facts in brief are that a Civil Suit for eviction of tenant from the suit
accommodation i.e. a shop of area 10x18 =180 sq. ft. situated at ground floor
of House No.80, Ibrahimpura, Talaiya Road, Bhopal, that was let out to
appellant/defendant for non-residential purposes, was filed on 13.01.2009 on
ground under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
along with recovery of rent stating that suit accommodation is required
bonafide for the business of respondent Mukesh Agrawal, who is major son
of landlady Parvati Bai who died during the pendency of this appeal and no
other suitable accommodation is available.
3. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed
the suit and it was held that the plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of suit
accommodation for his business purpose and no alternative suitable
accommodation is available.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the trial
Court, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the
impugned judgment and decree.
5. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions
of law :-
"1- Whether in view of the statement made by the plaintiff witness
Mukesh Agrawal in para 18 of the cross examination, the finding recorded
by the Courts below regarding bonafide need of the plaintiff are rendered
illegal and perverse ?
6. Perused the record of both the Courts below.
7. Trial Court in para-15 of the judgment dated 29.11.2010 in RCS
No.685-A/2009 has recorded the finding that plaintiff No.2 Mukesh
Agrawal/respondent has not other reasonable suitable no-residential
accommodation of his own on his occupation in the city of Bhopal and in para-
16 of the judgment has decided on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in favour of plaintiff/respondent. First
Appellate Court in para-13 of the judgment has affirmed the findings and
appellant has raised the correctness of those findings referring to para-18 of
testimony of Mukesh Agrawal PW-1.
8. Para-18 of the evidence of Mukesh Agrawal PW-1 mentions the total
width 24 ft and length 18 ft. He admits that in 24 ft. width two shops are
situated along with a passage of 3 ft. He denied the suggestion that both the
shops are same size but admits that suit accommodation is in possession of the
appellant/defendant is of 10x18 ft. size. It is argued that this description along
with the para-3 of plaint discloses that plaintiff/respondent has another shop in
his possession.
9. Para -3 of the plaint mentions that the disputed shop is bonafidely
required by the plaintiff No.2 for expansion of his Screen Printing business
which he is doing right away in the adjoining small shop measuring about 4x18
sq. ft. which is congested and inconvenience.
10. First Appellate Court in para-11 of the judgment has discussed this
issue and ultimately recorded the finding that plaintiff/defendant has no other
reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation
in the city of Bhopal and appellant Pramod Vyas DW-1 has admitted in para-15
of his statement that plaintiff No.2 Mukesh Agrawal runs a Printing Press
business and the business of Printing Press is aside the suit accommodation and
plaintiff has no other vacant shop to extend his Printing Press business. He has
no reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation of his own on his
occupation in the city of Bhopal.
11. In Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. AIR 2000 SC
534 it is held that :-
" The only question to be decided in the suit was whether
plaintiff-landlord wanted the suit premises for the bona fide
requirement.The bona fide requirement of the landlord does
not give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to
be decided on the appreciation of evidence. This view was
also expressed by this Court in Ram Prasad Rajak vs. Nand
Kumar & Bros. & Anr., JT (1998) 5 SC 540. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court while formulating first
substantial question of law proceeded on the basis that the
plaintiff-landlord admitted that there were number of plots,
shops and houses in his possession. We have been taken
through the judgments of the Courts below and we do not
find any such admission. It is true that the plaintiff-
landlord in his evidence stated that there were number of
other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a
categorical statement that his said houses and shops were
not vacant and that suit premises is suitable for his
business purpose. It is settled position of law that the
landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or
business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the
matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K. Krishnan, [1996] 5
SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted
eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his
business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
12. In Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan, (2007) 4 SCC 465, it is held that
the bona fide personal need being a question of fact should not be normally
interfered. Relevant para-14 of the judgment is being referred as below :
"14. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery
& Co., AIR 2000 SC 534, it was held that it is the choice of
the landlord to choose the place for the business which is
most suitable for him. He has complete freedom in the
matter. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, AIR 2001
SC 803 it was held that the need of the landlord is to be
seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi
v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 it was held that the
landlord is the best judge of his requirement and courts
have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in
what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is
a question of fact and should not be normally interfered
with."
13. Perusal of para-18 of testimony of Mukesh Agrawal PW-1 and para-
15 of Pramod Vyas DW-1 does not render the finding of trial Court as affirmed
by First Appellate Court regarding non-availability of other reasonable suitable
non-residential accommodation in plaintiff's occupation in the city of Bhopal,
perverse and matter is not covered by Ashok Kumar vs. Kishan Singh 2001(3)
MPHT 371.
14. The judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 by First Additional Judge
to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in regular Civil Appeal
No.4-A/2010 arising out of judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 in Civil Suit
No.685-A/2009 by 7th Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal are affirmed.
15. This Second Appeal fails and dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
DPS
DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH
2024.02.08 17:27:55 +05'30'
