SHEELA CHADHA Vs. ACHHARAJ RAM SEGHAL
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on April 17,1990

Smt. Sheela Chadha and Others Appellant
VERSUS
Dr Achharaj Ram Seghal Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAGHUNATH G PANHALE VS. CHAGANLAL SUNDARJI [LAWS(SC)-1999-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
BASU DEB SHAW VS. GITA MANIK [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-115] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)S. 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 gives right to a landlord to recover possession of non-residential rented premises for bona fide use of his unmarried daughter. The provision is in the following terms:
"12.(L) (f). . that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. "

(2.)The respondent herein, Dr A. R. Seghal, is engaged in the practice of Homeopathy medicine. So is his wife and an unmarried daughter bythe name of Rajini Seghal. As it has emerged from the pleadings of the parties and the orders of the first court as also the first appellate court, the landlord was able to secure eviction of a large portion of the building part of which is the premises in the instant case, comprising of two rooms of 10 x 10', which being in the occupation of the petitioners was sought by the landlord for the need of his daughter so that she set up separate medical practice in Homeopathy. The daughter, Rajini Seghal, appearing as witness at the trial before the first court when questioned elaborated that she had in mind to set up a maternity clinic and had also in mind to employ another doctor in case of need. This stance of hers was, and has been, commented upon by learned counsel for the petitioner to be that of a wavering mind and not reflective of her need to be bona fide. That her need was bona fide has been found by the first court as also by the first appellate court and the High court has dismissed second appeal of the appellants in limine. We have been taken through the statement of the daughter of the landlord and we too are left with the same impression that her need was bona fide. It is natural for an unmarried daughter to keep seeking some kind of protection from her parents and her parents in return to place her in such a situation where they can oversee her activities if engaged in a profession or a vocation. In this situation, the mere fact that the landlord was able to secure a larger portion of the building in an eviction petition against another tenant or that the daughter could well have been accommodated in that portion to carry on her profession as held by the first court, does not appeal to us. The law grants a fair amount of discretion to the landlord to determine his. needs when asking the vacation of tenanted premises. The only check on that is that must have the ground and the need should be bona fide. No precedent is needed to elaborate this view. The bona fide need of the daughter having been established, the landlord was justified in obtaining eviction of the petitioners to accommodate his daughter. Consequently, we reject this appeal but without any orders as to the costs.
(3.)To enable the appellants seek alternative accommodation, we grant them six months time subject to their paying arrears of rent to the respondents landlord within a period of one month from today and on their paying future rent in advance by the 10th of each calendar month. They shall also file the usual undertaking before the Registry of this court within a period of one month undertaking to vacate the premises on or before the expiry of six months time granted.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.