Mohinder
Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain [2006] Insc 102 (24 February 2006)
S.B.
Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan
(Arising
out of SLP(C)No.722/2005) S.B. SINHA, J :
Leave
granted.
The
father of the respondent herein was the owner of a shop in which the appellant
was inducted as a tenant on 1st April, 1972.
The monthly rent payable in relation to the said tenanted premises was
Rs.700/-.
The
original landlord, the father of the respondent having died on 5th March, 1979, the respondent along with his four
sisters, became the owner of the said tenanted premises. He was an employee of
Hero Honda Motors Limited. He retired from service having attained the age of
superannuation. One year after his retirement, he filed an application under
Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (`the
Act') for eviction of the appellant from the shop in question on the ground of
his bona fide personal requirement, i.e., for the purpose of running wholesale
business in Ayurvedic medicines. The said application was dismissed by the Rent
Controller holding that the bona fide requirement of the respondent in respect
of the non-residential premises has not been proved and moreover he had not
been able to show consent of his sisters in his favour in that behalf. An
appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed by the Appellate Authority on a
finding that he proved his bona fide requirement. In the revision petition
filed before the High Court the appellant raised a contention that an
application for eviction on bona fide requirement of a non-residential premises
was not maintainable. It is not in dispute that this Court as also the Punjab
& Haryana High Court declared such a provision to be unconstitutional.
The
High Court opined :
"Still
further the learned counsel further argued that eviction on the basis of
personal requirement is not available in respect of non- residential building.
He has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court
reported as Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India and another 2003 (1) R.L.R.
91.
However,
I am bound by the judgment of the D.B. of this Court in State of Haryana Versus Ved Parkash Gupta and others. 1999 (1) R.L.R.
689,
wherein the provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
have been struck down and consequently, the landlord is entitled to seek
eviction of the tenant from the non-residential building. In view of the above
judgment the reliance of F.B.'s Judgment of Delhi High Court is not
tenable." We may notice that this Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal vs. State
of Punjab & Anr. [(1996) 1 SCC 1] held such a provision to be
unconstitutional, whereas in Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar & Ors.
[(1985) 2 SCC 683] somewhat different note was struck. The question recently fell
for consideration before a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Rakesh Vij vs.
Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi & Ors. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 504 wherein
this Court upheld the ratio laid down in Harbilas Rai Bansal (supra) stating :
"We
allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, declare
the abovesaid provisions of the amendment as constitutionally invalid and as a
consequence restore the original provisions of the Act which were operating
before coming into force of the amendment. The net result is that a landlord under
the Act can seek eviction of a tenant from a non- residential building on the
ground that he requires it for his own use." In view of the
afore-mentioned decision of this Court, we are not called upon to answer the
said question.
The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant faced with the said
decision, however, submitted that whereas a clear finding of fact was arrived
at by the Rent Controller that the respondent had failed to prove his bona fide
requirement in relation to the said premises in view of the fact that his
sisters did not give any consent for starting a business in the said shop, the
Appellate Authority did not delve deep into the matter. Our attention in this
behalf has been drawn to the following findings of the Rent Controller:
"The
third ground which has been raised by the counsel for the respondent for
nailing the petitioner's case by itself has a force to upset the petitioner's
case because firstly in the case in hand the petitioner has no where pleaded
that he is the sole owner of the shop in dispute and secondly from the perusal
of Ex.D6-the petition under Section 4 of the Act for the Determination of the
Fair Rent which was filed by the petitioner alongwith his four sisters, this
Court is satisfied that the shop in dispute is jointly owned by the petitioner
alongwith his four sisters. In para No.1 of the aforesaid petition Ex.D6 this
has been categorically pleaded that the petitioners (i.e. the Manohar Lal Jain-
the petitioner and his four sisters) are owner of the shop. Consequently the
testimony of the petitioner that he is owner of the shop in dispute is not only
beyond pleading but is also devoid of truth. Since the petitioner is not the
sole owner of the shop in dispute, therefore, the petitioner's version that the
shop in dispute is required solely by him for his personal use and occupation
for running a wholesale business of Ayurvedic Business appears to be a
concocted version because the petitioner has no where stated that his other four
sisters who are also the owner of the shop in dispute have consented him to use
the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation." The appellate
Authority although should have dealt with the said question, had otherwise
considered the matter from all aspects.
He had
taken note of the fact that the landlord was one of the co-owners and
non-joinder of other co-owners in eviction petition is not fatal.
This
question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in India Umbrella
Manufacturing Co. & Ors. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Savitri
Agarwalla (Smt.) & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 178] wherein this Court opined:
"Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeals are
liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a
suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners.
(See
Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath [(1976) 4 SCC 184] and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai
[(2002) 6 SCC 16], SCC para 25.) This principle is based on the doctrine of
agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on
his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The
consent of other co- owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the
other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed
in spite of their disagreement. In the present case, the suit was filed by both
the co-owners.
One of
the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to prejudice the
other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the parties stand
crystallised on the date of the suit and the entitlement of the co- owners to
seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the
suit; the only exception being when by virtue of a subsequent event the
entitlement of the body of co-owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act
of parties or by operation of law." A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is
maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the co- owner to show before
initiating the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller that he had taken
option or consent of the other co-owners. However, in the event, a co-owner
objects thereto, the same may be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing
has been brought on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had
objected to eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent herein. The
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that before
initiating the proceedings, the appellant was required to show that he had
experience in running the business in Ayurvedic medicine, has to be stated to
be rejected. There is no law which provides for such a pre-condition. It may be
so where a licence is required for running a business, a statute may prescribe
certain qualifications or pre-conditions without fulfilment whereof the
landlord may not be able to start a business, but for running a wholesale
business in Ayurvedic medicine, no qualification is prescribed.
Experience
in the business is not a pre-condition under any statute. Even no experience
therefor may be necessary. If the respondent has proved his bona fide
requirement to evict the appellant herein for his own purpose, this Court may
not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the finding of fact
arrived at by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High Court.
For
the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. In
the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Back