SHAKUNTALA BAI Vs. NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a shocking case. A suit for eviction of a tenant was instituted more than 42 years back in March, 1962 for the bona fide need of carrying on business by the owner landlord but his widow and sons are still knocking the doors of Court of justice. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant the landlord died leaving a widow and minor sons but this, the High Court thought, came to the advantage of the tenant, rendering the suit liable for dismissal, little realizing that they also needed some place to carry on business for survival. Such extreme views erode the faith of people in the judicial system prompting them to take recourse to extra judicial methods to recover possession of their property.

(2.) These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3-9-1997 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the second appeals filed by the respondents/tenants were allowed and the suit for their eviction was dismissed.

(3.) Girdhari Lal Gattani (husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 to 4) filed a suit on 31-3-1962 for eviction of Magan Lal (father of respondents) from a non-residential premises. The suit was filed on the ground that he required the premises for carrying on his own business. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against which an appeal was preferred by Magan Lal. During the pendency of the appeal, Girdhari Lal died and the appellants herein were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives. The appellants sought an amendment of the plaint and pleaded that they bona fidely require the premises for carrying on business. The tenant Magan Lal sought an amendment in the written statement to the effect that after the death of Girdhari Lal, the bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying on business pleaded in the suit came to an end. The lower appellate Court allowed the amendments and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was further amended and it was pleaded that the appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 had also attained majority and they wanted to start a cloth business in the premises in dispute. The trial court, after affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence, dismissed the suit. The appellants then preferred an appeal and during the pendency thereof the original tenant Magan Lal died and his sons, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were substituted in the plaint. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for eviction. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of eviction, the respondents preferred second appeal which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment/decree dated 3-9-1997 and the suit has been dismissed.