AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Vs. MUSTAQIM
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 12,2002
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
MUSTAQIM
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
HARISH BHATIA VS. JOHRA BEGUM [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-256] [REFERRED TO]JAGMEET SINGH KHALSA VS. SUDHAKAR PANDEY [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH PAHUJA VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUKHI BAI VS. MISHRI MAL CHHOTMAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
Narmadabai Damodar Diukar VS. Chandrakant V Pilankar [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH RAM THROUGH LRS. VS. SANWARMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-8-393] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTI DAS VS. KULADA PROSAD BHOWMICK ALIAS BHOWMIK [LAWS(CAL)-2005-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
BECHCHU LAL VS. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CIVIL JUDGE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY RENT AND BAIJ [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-231] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKHER MALHOTRA VS. PRAVIN CHAND [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA VS. XIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MORADABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. BHARTI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH PRASAD MITTAL VS. JAITUN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-396] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIWAS AGARWAL VS. RESHMI DEVI [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-11-181] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND SHARAM VS. NAND KUMAR KAMAL [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GANDHI ASHRAM KHADI BHANDAR AND ANR. AND AJIT KUMAR JAIN VS. XIX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-378] [REFERRED TO]
K GOPAL VS. SUDARSHAN DEVI BHATIA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-169] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR BARMAN VS. BHASKAR ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SAHAI VS. SURESH CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. SASHI BALA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA SARKAR VS. ANIL KUMAR DUTTANI [LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
DEV RAJ DUGGAL VS. HARISH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
HOTILAL PRASAD VS. SAKUNTALA SHARMA [LAWS(SIK)-2014-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA BAI VS. KANCHAN BAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-383] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. SRI BISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
NANA VS. PRABHAKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SHANKARLAL TIWARI VS. GULSHAN SANTRAM SAHANI [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-198] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD SHARMA S/O SRI MEVA LAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 BARABANKI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-306] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 BARABANKI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
NATTHULAL VS. KISHORILAL [LAWS(CHH)-2005-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
SYED AHMED ALI VS. SHAIK MOHD. BIN ABDUL BIN ALI RAMZAM [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-140] [REFERRED TO]
B SURESH BABU VS. T RAMAKRISHNAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
MAHMOOD HUSSEIN VS. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAREILLY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-215] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEVAK VS. IIIRD. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JAUNPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-306] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR KHANNA VS. MANISH CHHATWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
SWARAJ KUMAR VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
NANAK CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS VS. JAI BHAGWAN [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-844] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH NARAIN VS. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-330] [REFERRED TO]
MULAKHRAJ VS. LAJPAT RAI VARSHNEY [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI VS. BHAGWAT PRASAD VISHWAKARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2009-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA KHER VS. NIRMALA DEVI NATHANI [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-143] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA SHUKLA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE UNNAO [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-221] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIK SINGH VS. R.R. GULATI [LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
NAMAMAL VS. PRAKASHCHAND JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL PUKHRAJ VS. PREM KISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER VS. NARBADA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT VS. MAHESH GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR VS. RENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KISHORE VS. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(CHH)-2005-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
NANDANI DEVI SMT VS. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-237] [REFERRED TO]
KAFEEL AHMAD VS. SATVINDRA KAUR [LAWS(ALL)-2005-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEVAK VS. SPECIAL JUDGE (ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT), JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-255] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM BAIJ NATH PRASAD JAMUNA PRASAD (M/S.) VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-217] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ TRAVELLING STORES VS. RANJIT KUMAR RATHORE [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
JHAWARLAL BOTHARA VS. KUSUMLATA AGARWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2007-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
KANAHAIYA LAL AGARWAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
ARIHANT TRADING AGENCY VS. SHANKAR LAL BHARTIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERDHANDAS MULCHAND AGRAWAL VS. BHERULAL UDERAM BAGADE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
MANCHUKONDA SRINIVASAM VS. VEMPOLU BRAHMANANDA RAO DIED [LAWS(APH)-2003-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRO PRASAD VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO 8 VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-271] [REFERRED TO]
FATIMA BAI VS. SHAKIR ALI [LAWS(MPH)-2004-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL GANDHI VS. BHOPAL WHOLESALE CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2004-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
UMRAO SINGH VS. SURESH KUMAR AND ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-10-181] [REFERRED]
MAINAK BHOWAL VS. BISWAJIT GUPTA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR GOYAL VS. AVNEET KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-134] [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM GUPTA VS. JAI RAM VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM BAHADUR GUPTA VS. JAI HIND PRAKASH GOEL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-314] [REFERRED TO]
(SMT.) KELAWATI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-309] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR PRASAD VS. SRI JAI DAYAL DALMIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-299] [REFERRED TO]
BACHHU LAL VS. IXTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH AND ANOTHER VS. IIIRD A.D.J. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-238] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS RATHI VS. SUNDARLAL MALL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILABAI VS. NAVNITBHOJRAJ LAKHOTIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-137] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARDAS S O DAMODHARDAS SINDHI VS. SHANTABAI [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL GUPTA VS. AVINASH PARTAP [LAWS(HPH)-2014-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ROOM NO. 13 [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-325] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY AND OTHERS VS. KALYANI KALI AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-143] [REFERRED]
RAJALA DEVI VS. TASHI TSHERING BHUTIA [LAWS(SIK)-2013-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH S O BALKRISHNA DANDE VS. SOMANI RADIO CORPORATION AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-176] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL VS. RAMA SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH SON OF MUNSHI RAM VS. SH DEVENDER PRATAP SON OF KARAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-165] [REFERRED TO]
Sohail Karimi VS. Sanjida Begam [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. SHEVI BAI [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-1-195] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM AND OTHERS VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FARRUKHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-362] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KASTOORI DEVI VS. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-388] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PAL AND ANOTHER VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-293] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR KULWANT SINGH VS. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR NATH GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. IXTH A.D.J., KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-289] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA AGRAWAL VS. BHARAT PRESS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
Alpana Choudhary VS. Alok Kumar Banerjee [LAWS(JHAR)-2011-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
B SURESH BABU VS. POGULA SIVASANKARA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
M V GANESH VS. P V VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2004-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
KATHAN VS. SCAW MANAK CHAND SHOHAJI [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
T SOUNDARAPANDIAN VS. G RATHINAM [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
MINATI SAHA VS. SANJIT KUMAR PANDEY [LAWS(CAL)-2012-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
DHANNA LAL VS. KAILASH CHAND @ RAKESH SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-332] [REFERRED]
SAKUNTALA SHARMA VS. MOHAN KUMAR AGARWAL @ MUNNA [LAWS(SIK)-2013-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
AVNEET KUMAR GUPTA VS. VINOD KUMAR GOYAL [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. KAMAL VASINI AGRAWAL [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
SACHINDRA NATH PAL VS. DINABANDHU ASH [LAWS(CAL)-2006-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
KAFEEL AHMAD VS. SATVINDRA KAUR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT JALAUN AT ORAI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA DEVI VS. IX ADDL DISTT JUDGE VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN VS. KAMAL GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-90] [REFERRED TO]
ELPAYERS TAILOR VS. RAVISHANKAR AWASTHI [LAWS(CHH)-2009-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
M V GANESH VS. P V VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2004-11-89] [REFERRED]
PRAHLAD KUMAR SAHU VS. SHIV PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-151] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMER KUNDU AND ORS. VS. KANAILAL KHAN [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)A decree for eviction upholding availability of ground under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter the Act, for short) was passed in favour of the appellant-landlords and against the tenant-respondents by learned Munsif, Biharsharif. A revision preferred under Section 14(8) of the Act has been allowed by the High Court and decree of trial Court set aside. The aggrieved landlords are in appeal by special leave.
(2.)It would suffice to briefly sum up and notice the facts, as alleged and found proved by the trial Court. Out of the four plaintiff-appellants, three are brothers and fourth is the sister. They are all sons and daughter of Ram Chandra Sao. Ram Chandra Sao has been running a business of dealing in onions and potatoes. Out of his three sons, plaintiff No. 1 passed B.Sc. in 1984, plaintiff No. 2 passed B.A. Hons. in 1994 and plaintiff No. 3 passed matriculation in 1988. All the three sons are educated unemployed. The three brothers are in need of non-residential premises for running business, each of his own and separately from each other. The suit premises consist of two shops combined together which were let out to the respondent-tenants by one Dr. Bhuvnesh Kumar, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises through registered deed of sale for satisfying the requirement of Akhilesh Kumar, plaintiff No. 1, who wants to start his own retail business of clothes with capital made available by the financial assistance from the father. The trial Court found the requirement to be reasonable and in good faith. However, the trial Court formed an opinion that partial eviction would satisfy the requirement of Akhilesh Kumar and, therefore, by decree dated 21-12-96 directed part of the suit premises, as specified in the decree of the trial Court, to be vacated. The respondent-tenants preferred a revision. The High Court has not dislodged the essential findings arrived at by the trial Court that Akhilesh Kumar is an educated unemployed and is in need of settling himself independently in business. However, what has prevailed with the High Court in reversing the decree of the trial Court may be noticed. The High Court holds that all the plaintiffs are engaged in supporting the father in potato and onion business which is being carried on in another premises and, therefore, it is difficult to believe that plaintiff No. 1 wants to start any business of his own. Secondly, there are two other shops available to the plaintiffs wherein plaintiff No. 1 could have started the business if at all he intended bona fide to do so. But that was not done. The High Court summed up its conclusion by observing that the requirement pleaded by the plaintiffs was not genuine; it was rather mere desire, the element of need being absent.
(3.)In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court cannot be coutenanced and has occasioned a failure of justice. Overwhelming evidence is available to show that the plaintiff No. 1 is sitting idle, without any adequate commercial activity available to him so as to gainfully employ him. The plaintiff No. 1 and his father both have deposed to this fact. Simply because the plaintiff No. 1 is provisionally assisting his father in their family business, it does not mean that he should never start his own independent business. What the High Court has overlooked is the evidence to the effect, relied on by the trial Court too, that the husband of plaintiff No. 4, i.e. son-in-law of Ram Chandra Sao, was assisting the latter in his business and there was little left to be done by the three sons.
(2.)It would suffice to briefly sum up and notice the facts, as alleged and found proved by the trial Court. Out of the four plaintiff-appellants, three are brothers and fourth is the sister. They are all sons and daughter of Ram Chandra Sao. Ram Chandra Sao has been running a business of dealing in onions and potatoes. Out of his three sons, plaintiff No. 1 passed B.Sc. in 1984, plaintiff No. 2 passed B.A. Hons. in 1994 and plaintiff No. 3 passed matriculation in 1988. All the three sons are educated unemployed. The three brothers are in need of non-residential premises for running business, each of his own and separately from each other. The suit premises consist of two shops combined together which were let out to the respondent-tenants by one Dr. Bhuvnesh Kumar, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises through registered deed of sale for satisfying the requirement of Akhilesh Kumar, plaintiff No. 1, who wants to start his own retail business of clothes with capital made available by the financial assistance from the father. The trial Court found the requirement to be reasonable and in good faith. However, the trial Court formed an opinion that partial eviction would satisfy the requirement of Akhilesh Kumar and, therefore, by decree dated 21-12-96 directed part of the suit premises, as specified in the decree of the trial Court, to be vacated. The respondent-tenants preferred a revision. The High Court has not dislodged the essential findings arrived at by the trial Court that Akhilesh Kumar is an educated unemployed and is in need of settling himself independently in business. However, what has prevailed with the High Court in reversing the decree of the trial Court may be noticed. The High Court holds that all the plaintiffs are engaged in supporting the father in potato and onion business which is being carried on in another premises and, therefore, it is difficult to believe that plaintiff No. 1 wants to start any business of his own. Secondly, there are two other shops available to the plaintiffs wherein plaintiff No. 1 could have started the business if at all he intended bona fide to do so. But that was not done. The High Court summed up its conclusion by observing that the requirement pleaded by the plaintiffs was not genuine; it was rather mere desire, the element of need being absent.
(3.)In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court cannot be coutenanced and has occasioned a failure of justice. Overwhelming evidence is available to show that the plaintiff No. 1 is sitting idle, without any adequate commercial activity available to him so as to gainfully employ him. The plaintiff No. 1 and his father both have deposed to this fact. Simply because the plaintiff No. 1 is provisionally assisting his father in their family business, it does not mean that he should never start his own independent business. What the High Court has overlooked is the evidence to the effect, relied on by the trial Court too, that the husband of plaintiff No. 4, i.e. son-in-law of Ram Chandra Sao, was assisting the latter in his business and there was little left to be done by the three sons.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.