April 20, 2001 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned an eviction decree against a tenant, holding that a landlord cannot seek eviction of a non-residential tenant on the ground that the premises are required for the business of her grandsons.
Justice R.S. Garg delivered the judgment while allowing a second appeal filed by the defendant-tenant, challenging concurrent decrees passed by the lower courts in favor of the landlady. The original suit had been filed on the ground that the landlady needed the premises for the business prospects of her grandsons, Vivek and Sandeep Shrivastava.
The trial court and first appellate court had both accepted her plea and directed the tenant’s eviction. However, the High Court found that this decision was legally unsustainable.
Citing Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Justice Garg noted that eviction from non-residential premises can only be sought if the property is required for the landlord’s own business or that of a major son or unmarried daughter. “The need of the grandson cannot be considered the need of the landlady,” the Court observed, emphasizing the specific and restrictive language of the statute.
The Court also set aside the decree under Section 12(1)(i), which applies when a tenant acquires alternate residential accommodation. Justice Garg clarified that this clause is limited to residential premises and cannot be invoked for non-residential tenancy. Applying it to a business property, he said, “would not only be contrary to law but would violate the law itself.”
The respondent’s counsel had urged that the need of the landlady’s son—who retired and became unemployed during the case—be considered. The Court rejected this plea, ruling that a new cause of action cannot be added through amendment during the appeal. “The suit, which was not maintainable at the time of its institution, cannot be validated by subsequent events,” the Court stated.
Concluding the matter, the High Court set aside the decrees of the lower courts and directed both parties to bear their own costs. However, it clarified that the landlady is free to file a fresh suit based on the bona fide need of her son, if such a ground now exists.
The ruling reiterates that eviction under Section 12(1)(f) must strictly adhere to the statutory language and cannot extend to the needs of family members not mentioned in the provision.
Case Reference : Second Appeal No. 597 of 1999, Gurucharan Singh v. Premabai Shrivastava; For the Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri Soni, Advocate; For the Respondents/Defendants: Shri N.L. Srivastava and Shri H.B. Agarwal, Advocates.
