Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/22 vs Musst Riazi Begum And Anr (E) on 22 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/22
GAHC010115712022
2025:GAU-AS:648
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/94/2022
MUSTT NAZMA AND 4 ORS
W/O- LATE ZAHIDUL HAQUE
R/O AMOLAPATTY, NAZIRA TOWN, P.O. NAZIRA, DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR,
ASSAM, PIN-785685
2: SAYED ASHADUL HAQUE
S/O- LATE ZAHIDUL HAQUE
R/O AMOLAPATTY
NAZIRA TOWN
P.O. NAZIRA
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785685
3: SAYED BHAIMON HAQUE
S/O- LATE ZAHIDUL HAQUE
R/O AMOLAPATTY
NAZIRA TOWN
P.O. NAZIRA
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785685
4: MISS ASHRAFI HAQUE
D/O- LATE ZAHIDUL HAQUE
R/O AMOLAPATTY
NAZIRA TOWN
P.O. NAZIRA
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785685
5: MISS BHONIMA HAQUE
D/O- LATE ZAHIDUL HAQUE
Page No.# 2/22
R/O AMOLAPATTY
NAZIRA TOWN
P.O. NAZIRA
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-78568
VERSUS
MUSST RIAZI BEGUM AND ANR (E)
W/O- LATE MOHD. SADULLA
R/O KOLGAON, MOUZA-ATHKHEL, GALEKI, P.O. GALEKI, IN THE
DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. PIN-785696
2:MD. ASHADULLAH HUSSAIN
S/O- LATE MOHD. SADULLA
R/O KOLGAON
MOUZA-ATHKHEL
GALEKI
P.O. GALEKI
IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR
ASSAM. PIN-78569
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate;
Ms. S. Todi.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. A. Ikbal.
Date of hearing : 29.10.2024
Date of judgment : 22.01.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Page No.# 3/22
2. This civil revision petition, under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., is directed against the Order dated 20.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivsagar, in Title Appeal No. 11/2013.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Order dated 20.11.2021, the learned Civil Judge, Sivsagar has affirmed the Judgment dated 18.03.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Sivsagar, in Title Suit No. 53/2001.
4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal is adumbrated here in below :-
"The respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment against Zahidul Haque (since deceased), in respect of an Assam Type house, 22 ft. X 20 ft. in size standing on a plot of land measuring 02 Kathas 16 Lechas covered by Dag No.253, 143 & 244 of Periodic Patta No.20 of Nazira Mouza (herein after referred as the suit house and suit property). After his death, his legal heirs viz- Najma Haque, Sayed Asabul Haque, Sayed Bhaimon Haque, Miss Asrafi Haque and Miss Bhanima Haque were impleaded in the suit as defendants.
The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the legal heirs of late Md. Sadullah, who died intestate in respect of the suit house, which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- only and after his death, the plaintiffs became the landlord and the tenancy continued. Initially, there was a written agreement between the parties, but after expiry, the same was not renewed.
It is alleged that as the original defendant was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent, the original landlord Md. Sadullah instituted an eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 81/1996, claiming arrear rent as well. But, as Md. Sadullah expired during the continuity of the suit and Page No.# 4/22 due to lack of proper step, the same was abated and dismissed.
Prior to that, the original defendants gave the plaintiffs a condition for payment of the arrear rent which was that the plaintiffs will not proceed with Title Suit No. 81/1996, against him. Thereafter, the original defendant paid arrear rent for 10 months in the month of October, 1998 for 12 months on July, 1999. But, as he was defaulter since April 1996 after payment of 22 months arrear rent on July, 1999, the defendant still remained as defaulter for 16 months. Continuous demands were made from the plaintiffs for clearance of the arrear rent and payment of the monthly rents to the original defendant, but without honouring the demand of the plaintiffs, the original defendant started to deposit the monthly rent before the court without offering them the rent.
It is further alleged that the substituted defendants after the death of the original defendant encroached the plots of land attached to the suit house. Lastly, the plaintiffs alleged that the suit house is required by them bonafide for the reconstruction as it is 100 years old structure and is in a dilapidated condition and for starting a business for the establishment of plaintiff No. 2's future life. In the aforesaid premises, the plaintiffs prayed for passing decree for evicting the defendants from the suit property.
The substituted defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and stated that except admitting the tenancy since 1971, they denied more or less all other allegations of the plaintiff. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in terms of cause of action, limitation, joinder of parties, valuation etc. and also denied Page No.# 5/22 the claim of the plaintiff of his bona-fide requirement of the suit house.
Another stand was taken by the defendant that for payment of the monthly rent, plaintiffs used to issue receipt for the same and suddenly, from the month of July, 1999, the plaintiffs started to demand Rs. 800/-. But, as the defendants did not conceded to the unjustified demand of rent and offered the plaintiffs monthly rent as per prevailing rate of Rs. 450/-, the plaintiffs refused to receive the same and on compelling circumstances, the defendants had to deposit the rents before the court and further the defendants denied that the suit house is bona-fide requirement of the plaintiff as because the suit house is not in a dilapidated condition as alleged by the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4.1. Upon the said pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-
"(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(ii) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the defendant is defaulter?
(iv) Whether the suit premise is bona fide required by the plaintiff?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit premises?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief/reliefs??"
4.2. Thereafter, hearing learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and also considering all the documents exhibited by the parties, the learned trial court had decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit with cost by issuing following directions:-
Page No.# 6/22 "(i) That, the defendants are directed to vacate the suit premise within 90 days from today and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs and after restoration of possession to the plaintiffs, the defendants are restrained permanently from making any effort to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property.
(ii) That, the defendants will pay the plaintiffs arrear monthly rent of the suit house @ Rs. 450/-
(Rupees four hundred and fifty) only from December, 1999 till they hand over vacant possession of the suit house or being evicted thereof, and
(iii) That, the defendants are also directed to pay the cost of the suit and the same will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum on and from the date of judgment till full and final realization."
4.3. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioners herein approached the learned Civil Judge, Sivsagar, by filing a title appeal, being Title Appeal No. 11/2013 and upon the said title appeal, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment so passed by the learned trial court in the Title Suit No. 53/2001.
5. Being aggrieved, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioners on the following grounds :-
(i) That the learned first appellate court has misappropriated the facts and law and thereby, arrived at an erroneous finding;
(ii) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider the documents exhibited by the petitioners/defendants in its proper perspective and also failed to Page No.# 7/22 examine the relevancy of the materials on record, more specifically the exhibits, exhibited by the defendants;
(iii) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider the fact that as to when the rent of the rented premises, falls due and erroneously applied the provision of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972;
(iv) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to appreciate that the fact that the landlord/plaintiff has failed to prove its case and get the decree of eviction on the ground of defaulter in payment of rent;
(v) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to appreciate the fact that the landlord has been accepting the rent for months together, even after the landlord initially instituted another eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 81/1996 and as such, it is incumbent on the part of the landlord to establish mode of payment, due date and the exact date of default, so as to negate the benefits which the defendant is otherwise entitled to under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972;
(vi) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider the evidence of D.W.1, who specifically stated that the tenant has offered the rent for the month of July, 1999 to the landlord and on refusal to accept the same, the tenant has started depositing the rent before the court and in his cross examination, D.W.1, had stated that he offered the rent on 04.08.1999, and as such, the evidence of D.W.1 assured Page No.# 8/22 consideration of the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court;
(vii) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider and appreciate that it is no longer res integra that while depositing rent before the court, after initial refusal by the landlord, it constitutes a valid deposit, which protects the tenant from being evicted;
(viii) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to appreciate the fact that payment of rent is a continuous process and the tenant has been depositing rent before the court since July, 1999 till date and since the tenant has been paying rent without default, thereby fulfillment of criteria of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972, will protect the tenant from being evicted;
(ix) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs have never led any evidence to substantiate bona-fide requirement except for throwing hints here and there and without there being any cogent evidence substantiating bona-fide requirements, the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to ought not to have arrived at a conclusion that the suit land was actually required bona-fide; and
(x) That the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider the fact that the landlord has already instituted another title suit for eviction and the same was settled and the tenant continued payment of rent and within a period of Page No.# 9/22 2 years, the landlord again instituted a fresh suit claiming eviction and bona-fide requirement and the said bona-fide requirement is an ancillary ground for eviction, which can be very well determined from the acts of the parties.
Under such facts and circumstances, it is contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned Order dated 20.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar in Title appeal No. 11/2013, whereby affirmed the Judgment dated 18.03.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Sivasagar, in Title Suit No. 53/2001.
6. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits following points for consideration of this court :-
(i) Both the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court have failed to consider the evidence on the record;
(ii) To establish the bona-fide requirement, the plaintiff has to establish that to construct the building where they will get the fund, but they could not establish the same by leading any evidence and that they could not even pursue their studies because of absence of fund;
(iii) The learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court failed to consider the Paragraph No. 15, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff No. 2 is an unemployed, but he is a service holder, serving as a police constable of Assam Police and that the suit house is not in dilapidated condition and there is no requirement;
and
(iv) There is evidence to show that on being refused to accept the rent, the defendants started depositing the rent before the court Page No.# 10/22 and on such count, they are not the defaulter.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Sahewalla has contended to allow this revision petition by setting aside the impugned Order dated 20.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar in Title Appeal No. 11/2013.
6.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Sahewalla has referred following decisions:-
(i) Haren Barua vs. Lalit Bhuyan, reported in (1991) 1 GLR 255;
(ii) Atul Chandra Kharghoria, Secretary to the Government Aided Model Commercial Institute, Jorhat vs. Lutfur Rahman & Others, reported in (1992) 1 GLR 341; and
(iii) Jesraj Sharma and Another vs. Nand Kishore Sureka, reported in (1993) 1 GLR 193.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondents submits following points:-
(i) That Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972 is not attracted here in this case as there is no materials not to speak of proof that at first rent was tendered to the landlord;
(ii) That no notice was given to the defendants about depositing of the rent before the court;
(iii) That the burden to prove that they are not defaulter as raised upon the petitioners herein, in which they could not discharge;
Page No.# 11/22
(iv) That the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable here in this case;
(v) Tendering rent to the landlord and refusal to accept the same, must be proved and no such evidence is laid before the court;
(vi) Annexure - 7 has no evidentiary value as no non-judicial cases were called for at the time of hearing;
(vii) There is bona-fide requirement of the suit premise and the same has been mentioned in Paragraph No. 12 of the plaintiff;
(viii) Plaintiffs are unemployed and at that time their financial condition was not good and now also it is not good;
(ix) There is not legal requirement to establish that he has money to construct the house, so as to establish the bonafide requirement; and
(x) That the scope of revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is limited and the court can invoke the said jurisdiction only on establishing of jurisdictional error and in the case in hand, the petitioners failed to show any jurisdictional error.
7.1. Mr. Ikbal has referred following decisions in support of his submission:-
(i) G.C. Kappor vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin & Others, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 610;
Page No.# 12/22
(ii) Prasanta Kumar Deb vs. Gauri Shankar Pau. and Others, reported in (2005) GLT 540;
(iii) Abdul Matin Choudhury and Another vs. Nityananda Dutta Banik, reported in (1997) 2 GLR 468; and
(iv) Gopika Ranjan Chakraborty vs. Amulya Kumar Bhattacharjee and Another, reported in (2005) 2 GLR 613.
8. In reply to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the evidence of D.W.1 is very clear to show that he went to deposit rent, but the landlord refused to accept the same.
9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Order dated 20.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar, in Title Appeal No. 11/2013 and also perused the Judgment dated 18.03.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Sivasagar, in Title Suit No. 53/2001.
10. The issue of defaulter has been dealt with by the learned trial court in issue No. 3 and while dealing with the issue, the learned trial court has discussed the provision of Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 as under :-
"Bar against passing and execution of decree and orders for ejections :-
5.(1) No order, or decree for the recovery of possession of any house shall be made or executed by any Court so long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable under this Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in a suit or proceedings for eviction of t Page No.# 13/22 the tenant from the house:-
(a) Where the tenant has done anything contrary to the provisions of clause (m), clause (o) or clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or to the spirit of the aforesaid clause in areas where the said Act does not apply, or
(b) Where the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance of an annoyance to the occupiers of the adjoining or neighboring houses, or
(c) Where the house is bona-fide required by the landlord either for purposes of repairs or rebuilding, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, or whether the landlord can show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court, or
(d) Where the tenant sublets the house or any part thereof or otherwise transfers his interest in the house or any part thereof without permission in writing from the landlord, or
(e) Where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect of the house within a fortnight of its falling due, or
(f) Where the tenant has built, acquired or been allotted a suitable residence.
(2) The transfer of the interest of the landlord in the house shall not affect the right of the tenant provided the tenant pays rent allowable under this Act to the transferee.
(3) Where the landlord recovers possession of a house from a tenant on the ground that the house is bona-
fide required by him for purpose of repairs or Page No.# 14/22 rebuilding or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, and the repairs or the rebuilding of the house is not commenced or the house is not occupied by the landlord or such person within fifteen days of the date of vacation of the house by such tenant or the house having been so occupied is within six months of the said date re-let to or allowed to be possessed by any other person, the Court may, on the application of the evicted tenant made within seven months of his vacating the house, direct the landlord to put the evicted tenant in possession of the house within such period as the Court may fix and to pay him such compensation as appears to the Court to be reasonable and proper. Such a direction shall be deemed to be a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to be capable of execution as such under the provisions of that Code. (Central Act 5 of 1908).
(4) Where the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the tenant may within a fortnight of its becoming due, deposit in Court the amount of such rent together with process fees for service of notice upon the landlord, and on receiving such deposit, the Court shall cause a notice of the receipt of such deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of the deposit may thereafter be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in that behalf. A tenant who has made such deposit shall not be treated as a defaulter under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of this section..."
11. The learned trial court has also held that the defendants alleged that they are depositing the rent of the suit house before the court every month since July, 1999 and it can reasonably conclude that irrespective of the fact of existence of Page No.# 15/22 any written agreement between the parties, the tenancy is found to be a monthly tenancy and hence, the rent becomes due at the end of the month.
12. From a perusal of the provision of Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 it becomes clear that so long the tenant pays the rent in full extent, he cannot be evicted from the tenanted premise by any order or decree. But, there are some exceptional conditions, which are mentioned from Clause (a) -
(f) of Section 5(1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, on fulfillment of which, a tenant can also be evicted from the rented premise.
13. A cursory perusal of the plaint also reveals that the plaintiffs had sued the defendants, covering exceptional clauses enumerated in Clause (c) and (e) of Section 5(1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and mainly stretched upon the "Defaulter Clause" mentioned in Clause (e) of Section 5(1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, which is the subject matter of current issue.
14. Thereafter, the learned trial court had held that though the parties are at issue regarding the payment of house rent from the month of April, 1996, but in view of the admissions of the plaintiffs that they received 22 months arrear rent on July, 1999 and as there was no established mode of payment before July, 1999, the learned trial court had held that the dispute till July, 1999 can be considered as a backup issue. But, the parties are found to be in strong disagreement regarding payment of rent since July, 1999 and hence this is taken to the primary point for determination for deciding whether the defendants are defaulters or not.
14.1. Thereafter, the learned trial court had held that the plaintiff refused to accept the house rent from them since July, 1999 at prevailing rate of Rs. 450/- and as such, they had to deposit the rent before the court. On the other hand, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants neither offered them the rent in the month Page No.# 16/22 July, 1999 and subsequent thereof nor deposited the rent before the court as per the provision of law.
14.2. Thereafter, discussing the Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, the learned trial court had held that the tenant has the liberty to deposit the house rent in the Court subject to the refusal of the landlord to accept the same on being offered by him. Thereafter, considering the evidence of defendants, the learned trial court had held that the defendants neither called for the Misc. (N.J.) cases nor exhibited and proved the same for establishing their claim that since July, 1999 they are depositing the monthly rents of the suit house before the court. The learned trial court had further held that the defendants have not proved that they have approached the plaintiffs every month since July, 1999 with the house rent and as they refused they deposited the same before the court. The learned trial court had also held that as the Misc. (N.J.) cases were not exhibited, the fact of offer and refusal cannot be established and that the defendants failed to establish paying the rent of the suit house to the plaintiffs, during the continuation of this suit and they deposited the same without offering the same to the plaintiffs, the deposits cannot be termed to be a valid deposit and as such, they have to be adjudged as a defaulters.
14.3. The learned first appellate court had also endorsed the finding of the learned trial court. The learned appellate court had discussed Section 5(1) (e), 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, and Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act and thereafter held that upon comprehensive reading of the connected sections of law along with the evidence placed on record as well as appreciation and discussion of the judgments of the learned trial court, it is seen that the appellant/defendant has not been able to prove that he is not a defaulter. The learned appellate court also held that the defendants had taken contradictory pleas that they have been depositing rent on a random basis and also taken a plea Page No.# 17/22 that they are paying rent in the court and the defendants was not able to bring out the relevant dates on which dates rent was paid so as to show that they had paid within fortnight and they had to prove that the rent was offered to the land lord and the land lord refused to accept it.
14.4. It is to be noted here that in the case of Abdul Matin Choudhury (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this court, in Paragraph No. 9, has held as under :-
"9. Regarding the deposit of rent in Court u/s 5(4) of the Act, there must be evidence that there was refusal by the landlord. In a series of cases this Court has held that Section 5(4) of the Act is a mandatory provision and the tenant seeking protection under the provision must tender or offer due rent within a fortnight of its falling due. The tender must be made which is the precondition to the deposit of rent in Court the question of depositing of rent in Court comes only when the landlord refuses to accept the rent. This question now has been clinched by a recent decision of the Apex Court in Rameswarlal Chaudhury vs. Ram Niranjan Mour ....."
14.5. Again in the case of Kalikumar Sen vs. Makhanlal Biswas, reported in AIR 1969 A&N 66 and in Deoki Nandan Bajaj & Ors. vs. Luku Barman & Ors., reported in 2007 (1) GLT 8, wherein it has been held that though the deposit was made in the Court without offering the same to the landlord is non-est in the eye of law and the same being in derogation to Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.
14.6. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned trail court as well as the learned first appellate court had committed any jurisdictional error by finding that the petitioners are defaulter.
Page No.# 18/22 14.7. It is to be noted here that Mr. Sahewalla, the learned counsel for the appellants has controverted this finding referring to paragraph No.15 of the written statement and the evidence of D.W.1 who had categorically stated that he offered rent to the land lord at his residence on 04.08.1999, but, he had refused to accept the same. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Sahewalla.
14.8. But, it is to be noted here that in Atma Ram vs. Shakuntla Rani reported in (2005) 7 SCC 211, Hon'ble Supreme has Court observed as under:
"19. It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in the rent control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision."
14.9. In the instant case, there is concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below that the petitioners had failed to call for the Misc. (N.J.) cases and also failed to exhibit and prove the same in the court to substantiate that since July, 1999 they have been depositing the monthly rents of the suit house before the court. And as the Misc. (N.J.) cases were not exhibited, the factum of offer and refusal cannot be established by the appellant/defendants herein. Having taken contradictory pleas that they have been depositing rent on a random basis and that they are paying rent in the court, it cannot be said that they had been able to discharge their burden that they are not defaulter.
15. Now, coming to the second question, regarding bona-fide requirement, this court finds that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.C. Kappor (Supra), in Paragraph No. 9, has held as under :-
Page No.# 19/22 "9. It is settled position of law that bona-fide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Another, this Court while considering the bona-fide need of the landlord was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to prove it but there is no warrant for 'presuming that his need is not bona-fide'. It was also held that while deciding this question. Court would look into the broad aspects and if the court feels any doubt about bona-fide requirement, landlord to clear such doubt."
15.1. In the case in hand, the respondents/plaintiffs in uncertain term had stated that the suit premise is requirement for construction of a building for own use and occupation for business purpose and that the requirement is a bona-fide one.
15.2. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff No. 2, and the blue print of the building plan, Exhibit - 5, had arrived at a finding that the suit premises is bona-fide required by the plaintiffs. The learned first appellate court had also endorsed the said view.
15.3. Having discussed the evidence so brought on record and also considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and further considering the decision cited by learned counsel for both the parties, especially the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.C. Kappor (Supra), this court is of the view that the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court had not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in arriving at the decision that the requirement of suit premises by the respondents herein is a bona-fide one.
15.4. It is to be noted here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Page No.# 20/22 Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinary & Co., reported in AIR 2000 SC 534 and in M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252, has dealt with the issue of bona-fide requirement. In the case of Ragavendra Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he has got complete freedom in the matter. In the case of Sait Nagjee Purushotham (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona-fide use for expansion of business, there is no ground that the landlord already has his business and therefore, it is not a genuine need.
15.5. Again in the case of Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 610, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how the property belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of the business. Also, the fact that the landlord is doing business from various other premises cannot foreclose his right to seek eviction from the tenanted premises so long as he intends to use the same tenanted premises for his own business."
16. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court, under Sections 115/151 CPC is very limited. It can interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, when it is demonstrated and the Courts below have committed jurisdictional error or a material irregularity requiring interference of this Court. Reference in this context, can be made to a decision of this court in the case of Niyoti Dev & Ors. vs. Ahmed Tea Company (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in 2017 (4) GLT 57, wherein it has been held that in exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court can interfere Page No.# 21/22 only if it shows that the Court below had exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
17. In the case of Harshavardhan Chokkani v. Bhupendra N. Patel, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 626, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
" .......... Nonetheless, the High Court is exercising the revisional power which in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the powers of the revisional court cannot be equated with the powers of the appellate court. In examining the legality and the propriety of the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved is such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like. It is only in such situations that interference by the High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that none of the aforementioned reasons exist in this case to justify interference by the High Court."
18. In the case in hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this court as to how the jurisdictional error or any irregularity committed by the learned courts below. The learned trial court in its judgment and decree has extensively discussed all the points pleaded in the pleadings by the respective parties and after detailed discussion, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. The learned first appellate court also discussed on the points and arrived at a concurrent finding with the learned trial court.
Page No.# 22/22
19. I have carefully gone through the decisions (i) Haren Barua (supra), (ii) Atul Chandra Kharghoria (supra) and, (iii) Jesraj Sharma and Another(supra), so referred by Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and I find that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar (supra), M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. (supra), Anil Bajaj & Anr.(supra) as well as in G.C. Kappor (supra), said decisions would not come into his aid.
20. In view of above, in the case in hand, this court finds no materials of irregularity or jurisdictional error had been committed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned first appellate court while deciding the suit and appeal.
21. Under such circumstances, this court finds that this revision petition bereft of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
22. Send down the records of the learned courts below along with a copy of this judgment and order.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant