Su Kumar vs Ratan Kumari and others

P.C. Agrawal, J.

This is a revision u/s 23-E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act for short), Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (R.C.A. for short) has ordered eviction of the applicant/tenant from a shop in Grain Mandi, Sanyogitaganj, Indore on the ground that Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) bona fide requires the same to start her own business of sale, purchase and storage of grains and she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation within the city of Indore for the purpose.

Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. All three sons of Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) have been joined in the application. Disputed shop was let out to the applicant in 1984 and in such shop he is carrying on his grain business. Previously a civil suit No. 862/1994 was filed by Murlidhar, the husband of Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) for eviction of the applicant on the ground of his own personal requirement to start grain business. Such a civil suit was got dismissed after death of husband of Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1).

The learned Senior Advocate for applicant has mainly raised following objections :-

a) Finding of the R.C.A. about existence of bona fide requirement has been perverse and arbitrary. Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) is an old lady, a widow with her three well employed and capable sons. She has no financial necessity to start grain business. Such business is male dominated. No woman carries on such business. She has no experience or knowledge of the grain business. The R.C.A. has acted on mere whim or fancy of non-applicant No. 1, her need was not adjectivally proved.

b) Non existence of alternative accommodation was also not proved.

Objection-A:- The learned Senior Advocate for applicant has relied upon Harisingh v. Ratanlal, 1959 MPLJ 662, Damodar Sharma and Another Vs. Nandram Deviram, (Full Bench), Sarvate T.B. v. Nemichand, 1966 MPLJ 26 SC, Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal, , Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others, , M/s Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tondan, AIR 1988 SC 1639, Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain, , Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, , Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) SCC 222, Draupadi Bai and Another Vs. Prem Singh Jagannath Rathore, to support his arguments with mere assertion or expression of desire or fancy by the landlord is insufficient to prove the requirement. Such desire must be honest and bona fide. The Court has to objectively determine the truth of the assertion and its bona fide. Mere expression of whim or fancy by the landlord is insufficient. The same must be an outcome of sincere and honest desire, in contradistinction to a mere pretence. In the words of Apex Court itself in Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others, :-

But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the Court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord''s desire for possession, however, honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it and that, that desire to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the Court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the Court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down.

Certainly, this concept of bona fide requirement has become well settled from a long catena of decision from various High Courts and the Apex Court.

Even then, the landlord is not bound to prove that he has a dire need Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Another, , a practical approach instructed by realities of life has to be adopted. Such approach should neither be too liberal nor be too conservative. The landlord is entitled to use his property with comfort. The law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and to work or dwell uncomfortably in available premises to continue possession of the tenant Draupadi Bai and Another Vs. Prem Singh Jagannath Rathore, . Question of bona fide requirement of the landlord is a question of fact to be determined on appraisal of cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances of the case. Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal, , Meenakshi Mills, Madurai Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, . The Court should adopt an appropriate of reasonable balance between both the tenant and Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal, . A practical approach has to be adopted. Siddalingamma and Another Vs. Mamtha Shenoy, .

In the facts of the present case learned R.C.A. after considering the oral evidence on record and hearing advocates of both the parties has decided in favour of the non-applicant. Keeping all the relevant factors in his mind. The scope of this revision is rather limited. Certainly, it is not an appeal. Only legality, propriety or correctness of the order or regularity of the proceedings of the R.C.A. has to be decided. Here in this case, interference is possible only when the finding of fact had been completely erroneous, perverse or arbitrary. Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate Vs. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval, , Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others, , Bhoolchand and Another Vs. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Another, .

The arguments that Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) being a woman is incapable of grain business, is an outdated concept of male chauvinism, in the present age when women are working with equal force and competence in all walks of life with the men. Shivmala Tejsingh Ingle v. Ramcharan Kundanlal, 1980 MPLJ 530 and Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., had been cited by the learned Senior Advocate for the non-applicant. Though, Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) is aged about 59 years but that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve her if she claimed that she would start business. In Harvilas Shivhare Vs. Jahoor Khan, landlord aged 75 years was held competent to run a flour mill. In Sheela Rani and Others Vs. Manish Kumar, landlord aged 75 years was held competent to run Kirana shop. Having no previous experience or knowledge of intricacies of grain business does not run counter as experience and knowledge have always to be acquired and age is not a bar for gain of experience Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Another, .

The fact that Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) is a widow and mother of three grown-up sons, all of them are well employed and her relations with her daughter-in-laws have not been proved to be incordial is not a bar against her need to start a new business of her own. She may not require much money for her needs in her old age and widowhood, yet she can certainly start a business to save herself from loneliness after the death of her husband. When her sons have grown-up and are engrossed in their own families. Her desire for self-expression financial independence and to face the realities of life could not be said to be either dishonest or mere pretext. The fact that Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) belongs to "Vaish" community or that she has been a housewife throughout her life till her husband was alive or her children are not dependent on her are certainly not bar against her. She has been definite that she would engage servants, munim, agent and broker and would conduct her business through them. The same is neither unnatural nor improbable. In these days no businessman can do his whole business personally. Many businessman do their work through their servants or agents who work under their supervision. The fear of the applicant that Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) would be put to loss if she depended on her servants is misplaced. These matters are to be considered by Smt. Ratan Kumari (NA-1) herself and not by the applicant.

The Act has provided sufficient safeguards if the landlord does not use the accommodation after getting vacated the same on the ground of personal requirement. Right of re-entry is available to the tenant. In my considered opinion, the view of the learned R.C.A. has neither been perverse nor arbitrary. He has considered the whole evidence on record and the facts of the case. His conclusions are based on material on record. Thus, no interference is warranted merely on the ground that a different view of the matter can also be taken. Reappraisal or re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court to reach to a different conclusion is not permissible Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC I00.

Objection-B:- The learned R.C.A. has examined the availability of all three alternative accommodation suggested by the applicant. He had held that shops situate on Shardha Nand Marg, Garage of the house of the non-applicants and the room situate on First Floor above the disputed accommodation do not form reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. These are finding of facts, no fault can be found in the conclusions drawn by the learned R.C.A.

Thus, there has been no substance in this revision. The same is dismissed. Order of the learned R.C.A. is confirmed as it is.