In a second appeal under the Rent Act, 1961, the Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The Court held that the lower courts correctly found the landlord had a bonafide need for the premises to open an astrology office, as the tenant was absent and the need was established.
Second appeal dismissed; no cost; decree to be drawn accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 324 of 2006
Netram Bagh ( pk; okyk ) Aged -52 years, S/o Late Deenbandhu Bagh, Presently R/o Uchala Talab, Ramkund, Utkal Basti, Raipur
---- Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Subhashchandra Gandhi, 53 Yr. S/o Jaichand Gandhi,
R/o Gond Para, Near Kitabghar, Bilaspur
---- Respondent/plaintiff
For Appellant :Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
02/12/2019
(1)The substantial question of law involved, formulated
and to be answered in this defendant's second appeal
states as under:
“Whether the findings recorded by both the
Courts below regarding bonafide need of
respondent is perverse ?
(For the sake of convenience, parties would be
referred hereinafter as per their status shown
and ranking given in the suit before the trial
Court).
(2)The imperative facts required to be noticed for
adjudication of this appeal are as under:
2
(2.1) Respondent / plaintiff herein filed a suit for eviction and ejectment stating inter alia that the defendant is his monthly tenant of Rs. 300/-, which he has terminated by serving notice on 4.8.2001 and despite that defendant has not vacated the suit accommodation, which the plaintiff is required bonafidely for opening the office of astrology and he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in the township of Raipur, in which, the defendant remained ex parte and did not appear before the trial Court.
(2.2.)The plaintiff examined himself and produced
certain documents in support of his case, which the trial
Court has accepted and granted decree of eviction in his
favour, which was challenged by the defendant/tenant in
the first appeal filed before the first appellate Court.
The first appellate Court, after re-appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence available on record, affirmed
the judgment & decree of the trial Court by dismissing
the appeal, against which, this second appeal has been
preferred by the appellant/defendant, in which, the
substantial question of law has been formulated for
consideration and set out in the opening paragraph of the
judgment.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/tenant
would submit that the plaintiff has not stated about his
3
bonafide need for the suit accommodation and only on plaintiff's wish to get the accommodation vacated, no decree for eviction can be granted, as such, the finding recorded by both the courts below with regard to bonafide need is liable to be set aside.
(4)I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendant and considered his submissions and
went through the record with utmost circumspection.
(5)The plaintiff has stated in his statement recorded
before the trial Court that he has no other reasonably
suitable accommodation in the township of Raipur, which
he has also averred on oath before making statement
before the court but he was not cross cross-examined as
defendant was ex parte before the trial Court, as such,
there is un-controverted statement available on record
and by which the trial Court has recorded a finding that
the plaintiff needs the accommodation for his bonafide
need for opening the astrology office and he has no other
reasonably suitable accommodation for the said purpose,
which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court.
(6)The plaintiff in his statement before the trial
Court has clearly stated that he needs the suit
accommodation for opening astrology office and he has no
other reasonably suitable accommodation in the township
4
of Raipur, which is situated in the main Road,
Ramsagarpara and he is owner thereof and he is involved
in the work of astrology for a period of 25 years. Thus,
the plaintiff/landlord has already averred the facts
constituting the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the
Act, 1961. Merely not stating that need is bonafide,
plaintiff's need even otherwise, which is bonafide,
cannot be said that it is not bonafide need. So far as
next submission of counsel for the appellant that it is a
mere wish and it is not the actual need also deserves to
be rejected. Defendant, despite notice by the trial
court, did not appear and did not controvert the
statement of the plaintiff made before the trial Court
and, therefore, need is found to be established. Thus,
in the second appellate stage, defendant cannot say that
the plaintiff's need is mere wish and not an actual
need.
(7)Both the courts below have concurrently held the
need to be the bonafide need and the plainitff has no
other reasonably suitable accommodation in the township
of Raipur, and even otherwise bonafide need is a finding
of fact based on material available on record and I do
not find any illegality or perversity in the findings
recorded by both the courts below. Thus, the substantial
question of law is answered accordingly in favour of
5
plaintiff and against the defendant.
(8)Consequently, second appeal, being devoid of merit,
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
(9)A decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
D/-
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of lower courts regarding the bonafide need of the respondent for eviction are perverse?
Whether the plaintiff's statutory requirement of no other reasonably suitable accommodation is satisfied?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Netram Bagh
Subhashchandra Gandhi
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court