VISHWANATH Vs. HIDAYATT ULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the landlord while the respondent is the tenant. The appellant who is a retired government servant filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 23-A (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement for starting his business. It was also pleaded in the eviction petition that the son of Appellant 1 was an unemployed youth having no source of income and that he was also to join the father in running the business. The precise pleadings in this behalf were contained in para 10 of the petition. That paragraph reads thus:

(2.) The petition for eviction was contested. Evidence was led by the parties. While the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controlling Authority, an application was filed by the tenant stating that the son of the appellant, for whose benefit also the shop was required to be got vacated, had since joined employment at Jabalpur and, therefore, the bona fide need of the son no longer subsisted. To that application, a reply was filed by the landlord staling that the employment of the son was not relevant, since the disputed premises were required by the landlord for running his own business where the son was going to join him and, therefore, the premises were required by the landlord for his bona fide need of starting his business. After considering the evidence on the record, the learned Rent Controlling Authority, vide order dated 2/7/1996, came to the conclusion that the appellant had established his bona fide need and consequently allowing the petition, directed the tenant to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the landlord. The order of the Rent Controlling Authority was put in issue by the tenant through a revision petition in the High court. On 1/11/1996, the High court set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The landlord is in appeal before us by special leave.

(3.) In upsetting the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, the High court observed that there had been no clear pleadings to assert that the landlord required the premises for opening a kirana shop for himself and, therefore, eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord was not established.