BADRILAL Vs. SITA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Full Bench has been constituted for deciding the following question :-

(2.) A brief background is that a suit was filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant-tenant inter alia on the ground of bona fide need of starting the business of her grand-son from the suit accommodation under section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the M. P. Act"). The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the eviction decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the second appeal was admitted by this Court on the substantial question relating to recognizing the business need of grandson of landlord under section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Act.

(3.) At the time of hearing of the second appeal before the learned Single Judge, counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Nandkishore vs. Sarjudevi, 1974 MPLJ 293, wherein the need of a landlord's spouse for eviction was not recognized under section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Act. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent had advanced arguments based upon the Division Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in the matter of V. N. Deshmukh vs. K. M. Kothari,1951 NLJ 250 and the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. V. Muthu vs. Aangamathu Ammal, 1997 AIR(SC) 628, Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2256 and Dwarka Prasad vs. Niranjan, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2024, and had submitted that in view of these subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court the need of the grandson of the landlord was covered under section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Act and the earlier Division Bench judgment in the matter of Nandkishore (supra) was no longer a good law. Learned Single Judge further referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash Chand and another vs. Dharam Das, 2005 AIR(SC) 2362 observed that in all these decisions while construing other rent legislations, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have preferred dynamic and purposive interpretation and refused to take a narrow and parochial view of the expression "of his own" in the context of eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, therefore, the learned Single Judge had directed for placing the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring the above quoted question for decision to a Larger Bench and accordingly this Full Bench has been constituted.