A
_(_
767
FIRM PANJUMAL DAULATRAM
_v._
SAKHI GOPAL
_May_ 3, 1977
[V, R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
_Mudhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,_ 1961 S. 12(l)(e) & _(f)-_
' _Scope_ _of-Bona_ _fide requiren1ent-Requireme11t_ _of_ _the_ _land-lord_ _of_ _ai:C01111no-_
_t1ation_ _of_ _both residential and_ _11011-residential_ _part_ _of_ _the building,_ _if_ _proved_
_entitled eviction_ _of_ _the tenant._
Under sub clauses (e) and (f) of S. 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, a landlord can evict a tenant, if the residential
and the non-residential accommodation respectively let out to the latter _is_ C
required _bona fide_ by him for occupation as a residence and for the purpose
of continuing or starting his business. Accommodation unP.er the Act _means
any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residentiu·l.
The appellant·tenant was inducted in by the respondent in 1955 for the dual
purposes of residential and non·residential purpose of running a cloth shop.
~fhe landlord, _bona fide_ required the building for his residence and also for
starting bis business of running a Chemist shop. The Eviction Suit filed by
_him_ was dismissed by the trial court, but the appellant and the High Court D,
granted him the eviction decree.
Discussing the appeal by special leave, the Court.
HELD : The residential portion as well as a non·residential portion are
parts of the building and each is an accommodation by definition. The land·
lord is entitled to eviction of the "accommodation" if he makes out a _bona fide_
residential and non·residential requirement of the portions. In the instant
case the contract was integral but had dual purpose. The landlord has put i'
forward dual requirements which neatly fit into S. 12 (I) (e) and (f) of the
J\iadhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The findings of th~
_-t._ ;:;,ppellate Court regarding the _bona_ _fide_ requirement of the landlord, not having
been challenged in the High Court and in this Court in the memorandum· of
Appeal, the consequence viz. eviction is inevitable. [769 E·G]
_S._ _Sanyal_ v. _Gianchand_ (1968] I S.C.R. 536, distinguished.
lThe Court, however granted time to the appellants for vacating the build· F
ing till 1-1-1978, in terms of equity].
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 991/76.
'
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
21.1.1976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
415 of 1971)
S. _Choudhury,_ _D._ _N._ _Mishra,_ _0._ C. _Mathur_ and _Shri_ _Narain_ for
the appellant.
_G. L. Sanghi, V. K. Sanghi, R._ _K._ _Sanghi_ and S. _S._ _Khanduja_ for
the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. A suit for eviction of an accommodation from
the tenant to whom it had been let for residential and non-residential
G
H
A
**B**
#### c
**D**
E
F
G
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 3 s.c.R.
purposes resulted in dismissal by the! trial Judge. But in an appeal,
the final court of fact took the view that the landlord (respondent)
was entitled to eviction. The tenant challenged the appellate decree
before the' High Court in Second Appeal without success and has
therefore come up to this Court with this appeal by special leave.
A short point has been raised which deserves only a short answer. Since we agree with the Hi~ Court which in tum has agreed
with the first appellate court,,our judgment can afford to be brief,
A statement of necessary facts may now be given. The landlord
had let out the premises, which is a storeyed building, to be tenant
as per Ex. P-1 of 1955. The significant clause irt the lease deed
runs thus :
**"1** **xxx**
2. I take your house for "my own use i.e. for opening a
cloth shop and for residential purposes and I will net sublet your house to anybody.
xxx xxx xxx **xxx."**
The tenant has thus put the building to business and residential purposes. The landlord, who is an M. Sc., claimed the building back
on the scorn that he wanted to run a medical store on the ground
floor---a non-residential purpose---and sta:ron the first floor with his
wife-a residential purpose. Thus the acommodation was let out
for dual purposes, was being used presumably for these requirements
and was being claimed back by the landlord for the twin purposes
mentioned above. The final court of fact has held that the landlord
needs the building for his chemist's shop and for his residential use.
The High Court in Second Appeal has upheld this finding and added
that
"the finding as to his bonafide requirement was rightly not
challenged before me ...... ' The conclusion that the courts
have reached is the only conclusion possible on the evidence on record in the light of the circumstances appear**ing."**
This statement by the High Court that the bonafide requirement of
the landlord was not challenged before it has not been questioned, in
the memorandum of appeal to this Court. It must therefore be
taken that the bonafide need of the landlord is validly made out.
The short point that survives is as to whether the composite purposes of the lease would put it out of the ground, set out for eviction
under s. 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,
1961. The said Act defines 'accommodation' thus :
#### '
###### '
**H** " 'accommodation' means any building or part of a building,
whether residential or non-residential and includes,-xx xxx **xxx."**
FIRM PANJUMAL _v._ _SAKHI_ GOPAL _(Krishna Iyer,_ J.) 769
It follows that an accommodation can be residential, non-residential **A**
or both. S. 12 bars an actiun of eviction of a tenant from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds set out therein. S.
12(l)(e) and (f), bearing on the present case, may be appropriately
_!_ extracted here :
"12. ·Restriction on eviction of ten en ts (1)
B
(a) to (d) x x x x x
#### •
,
# ••
"'
Counsel contended that in a decision of this Court, viz, _S._ _Sanyal_
v. _Gian Chand,(')._ it has been held that it is not permissible for the
court to split up a contract in an eviction proceeding. We agree.
There is no question of splitting up of the contract in the present
case, as is abundantly plain from what we have stated. The contract was integral but had dual purposes. The landlord has put
forward dual requirements which neatly fit into s. 12(1 )(e) and
(f). The consequence is inevitable that the eviction order has to
be upheld.
--o·~l~r1~9~6B~l ~1 =s.=c~.R-. ~si~6-.
( e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is
#### required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is
the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the
accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in the occupation in the city or town
**concerned;**
(f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose
'of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his
major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner there.
of or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation
is held and that the landlord or such person has no other
reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his
own in his occupation in the city or town concerned; .
xxx xxx **xxx."**
The residential portion is a part of the building and is an
accommodation by definition. The non-residential portion
is also a part of the building and is an accommodation
by definition. The lease has been given for residential a·s
well as non-residential purposes. The landlord is entitled
to eviction of the residential portion if he makes out a bonafide residential requirement. Likewise he is entitled to
eviction of the non-residential portion which is an accommodation if he makes out a non-residential requirement.
We havel already found that the final court of fact, affirmed
by the High Court, has found in favour of the landlord
regarding his residential as well as non-residential require.
ments. Therefore, nothing more can be done in defence
of the tenant in the light of the present law.
#### c
**D**
E
**F**
G
**H**
A
B
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1,977] 3 S.C.R.
It i~ seen; that the tenant has been doing a thriving cloth business,
with goodwill attached to it, for well knigh 30 years. It is therefore but fair that the tenant is given sometime to rehabilitate himself by
securing an alternative but suitable accommodation. In our towns
where scarcity .of accommodation i~ the rule it is not that easy to
secure alternative premises. Taking: due note of this reality, we direct
that while dismissing the appeal the eviction order shall not be put
into execution before 1st January, 1978.
Parties will bear their respective costs.
## S.R. Appeal dismissed. •
'
)
~
### .
##### >. 41
_$_
_(_
"
