ALLIMUDDIN Vs. CHANDRIKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgments of the Court below. The only question which survives for the consideration of this Court is regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord in occupying the suit premises in question which, admittedly, is a shop and the appellant's son wants to run this shop. In my considered opinion no ground is made out for interference by this Court with the findings of the first appellate Court. In my opinion the first appellate Court has very rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord since it has come in evidence that there is no other shop available for the use of his son Ramesh Chandra except the shop in question. The bona fide requirement by all standards has to be objectively considered and the owner is the best Judge of his bona fide need. The first appellate court has dealt with the matter at great length and has examined the case and every aspect of the matter by a thorough appreciation of evidence on the record with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord to occupy the shop premises in question for the use of his son Ramesh Chandra.

(2.) I am further of the opinion that the learned trial Court has arrived at an imaginary finding that the landlord has got several shops available to him whereas as per the evidence on the record, it has been discussed by the first appellate court that the shop which was already in occupation of Ramesh Chandra was a small shop taken on rent which is not sufficient to meet his bona fide need. The appellate court has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mohd. Hussain and another v. Abdul Rahim through his L.Rs Abdul Karim, 1988(2) RLR 112. The question which had arisen before this Court was regarding the bona fide need of the landlord who was residing in a rental premises and paying higher rent than that being paid to her by the tenant. It was held by this Court that the landlord's personal necessity was reasonable and bona fide and since comparative hardship was also in favour of the landlord this Court held that the landlord was entitled to succeed and the decree of eviction passed against the tenant was upheld keeping in view the bona fide need of the landlord which was considered objectively on the basis of the material on record.

(3.) SINCE the said aspect was overlooked by the High Court it was held by the Apex Court that since the appellant-tenant had already indicated his agreement in this regard and the respondent-landlord had disagreed to the suggestion of dividing the premises into two equal halves for being shared between the parties, the matter was, therefore, remanded back to the trial Court for examining the matter afresh in the light of the requirement of proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act treating the landlord's need to be proved. In my humble opinion, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court is neither attracted nor applicable to this case since in the case in hand before the Apex Court, the question was altogether different. It was regarding agreement between the parties which was disregarded by the landlord regarding division of the suit premises in question which obviously is not a case here. Since there is no agreement between the parties regarding division of the property in question, the question of its division does not arise.