2010 (5) TMI 797 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling: Landlord granted partial possession, balancing tenant rights.

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the landlord to recover possession of half of the disputed premises. The judgment highlighted ... Whether second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable basically on a substantial question of law and not on facts? Whether the High Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence? Whether landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent? Issues Involved:1. Bona fide need of the landlord.2. Enhancement of rent and its impact on bona fide need.3. Maintainability of the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. Perversity in the findings of the lower courts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bona fide need of the landlord:The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of nuisance and bona fide requirement for his business. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the ground of bona fide need but did not accept the plea of nuisance. The landlord was running his business in a small rented `Gumti` and required the disputed shop for his business expansion. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, doubting the bona fide need due to the landlord's son being employed in Dubai and the rent being increased periodically. The High Court, however, reinstated the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and cannot be forced to continue business in an unsuitable location.2. Enhancement of rent and its impact on bona fide need:The appellant argued that the landlord's need was a pretext to increase the rent, pointing out the periodic rent enhancements. The Trial Court found the landlord's need genuine despite the rent increases, noting that the landlord had not sought a rent increase since 1995. The First Appellate Court viewed the rent increases as indicative of the landlord's ulterior motive. The High Court disagreed, stating that the landlord's need should be assessed based on current circumstances, not past rent increases.3. Maintainability of the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The appellant contended that the High Court erred in entertaining the Second Appeal as it did not involve a substantial question of law. The High Court justified its intervention by identifying the First Appellate Court's findings as perverse. The Supreme Court reiterated that a second appeal is maintainable on substantial questions of law and can involve re-appreciation of evidence if the lower court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence.4. Perversity in the findings of the lower courts:The Supreme Court examined whether the First Appellate Court's findings were perverse. It concluded that the First Appellate Court erred in its inference about the landlord's need, which was based on the rent increases and the landlord's son's employment status. The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision to correct these errors justified, noting that the landlord's need was genuine and not a pretext for eviction or rent increase.Conclusion:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, directing the landlord to recover possession of half of the disputed premises, thus balancing the interests of both parties. The judgment emphasized the landlord's right to determine his business needs while ensuring the tenant's protection from arbitrary eviction. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.