DINESH KUMAR v. YUSUF ALI

basically on a substantial question of law and not on facts. However, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A B irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict. the tenant only for increasing the rent. [Para 25] (235-C-D] Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2730; Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E. V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil & ors. AIR 1994 SC 678; Reserve Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Ramakrishna Govind Morey C AIR 1976 SC 830.; Ku/want Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1273; Sheet Chand Vs. Prakash Chand AIR 1998 SC 3063; Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji Vs. Mahadev Channabasappa & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2108; Jai Singh Vs. Shakuntala AIR 2002 SC D 1428; P. Chandrasekharan & Ors. Vs. S. Kanakarajan & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 2306; Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. AIR 2007 SC 248; Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2033; Rishi Kumar Govil Vs. Maqsoodan and Ors. (2007) E 4 SCC 465; Jagdish Singh Vs. Nathu Singh AIR 1992 SC 1604; Smt. Prativa Devi Vs. T. V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353; Satya Gupta @Madhu Gupta Vs. Brijesh Kumar (1998) 6 SCC 423; Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. AIR 2000 SC 534; Molar Mal Through Lr. Vs. M/s. Kay Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1261; Prativa Devi Vs. T. V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353; Ram Dass Vs. /shwar Chander & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1422; Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra K. Tandon AIR 1998 SC 1639; Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507; G Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 602; and Siddalingamma & Ant. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy AIR 2001 SC 2896, relied on. F Jurisprudence by Salmond 12th Edn. p 69 - referred to. H DINESH KUMAR v. YUSUF ALI 225

2.1. In the instant case, the trial court after A considering the evidence on record including _increase in rent from time to time and the fact that after evicting s~ _doctor, in 1978, the landlord inspite of starting his business in the suit premises rented it out to the appellant, came to the conclusion that need of the B landlord was bona fide as he was running his business on a rented premises having a very small area at an unhygienic place i.e. platform on a Nalla. No other alternative or convenient place was available to him to shift/start his business and there had been no increase c in rent of the suit premises after 1995. ~he said findings were disturbed by the first appellate court mainly on the ground that the landlord did not require the suit premises for runnrng his business, rather it was a pretext to increase the rent as rent had been increased from time 0 to time and the landlord did not occupy the premises after being vacated by S-doctor. These circumstances made it clear that the landlord wanted to achieve the ulterior purpose. The landlord could be the best Judge of his need but he cannot be an arbitrary dictator. There E was no evidence to show that his son was interested to come back and join his father in business. [Para 28] [236- B-F]

2.2. The Hrgh Court reached the conclusion that. the landlord, inspite of the fact that he was owner of the suit F premises could not be forced to continue his business in a shop of negligible area in a 'Gumti' made on platform on Nalla. Mere continuation of long tenancy could not be a ground to reject the case of bona fide need. [Para 29] ~6-0J G

2.3. The admitted facts make it clear that the appellant is enjoying the tenancy of the premises measuring 152 sq.ft. for the last 32 years. The landlord- respondent is running his business .a_t a 'Gumti' measuring 3 ft. x 4 ft. made on a platform on a Nalla in Cantonment Board H 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R. A established by encroaching upon the public land. The demand of plastic goods in which the landlord is dealing is increasing day by day. Undoubtedly after evicting S doctor from the suit premises, the landlord did not start his business in the said premises but the incidence B which occurred several decades ago cannot be relevant to determine the actual controversy for the reason that need of the landlord is to be examined as per the circumstances prevailing on the date of the institution of the case. Thus, an incident too remote from the date of c institution of suit may not be relevant for consideration at all. The rent has been increased from time to time and it is not the case of the appellant-tenant that the rent had been enhanced arbitrarily or unreasonably or it could not be enhanced .in law. The fact that rent had not been enhanced since 1995, the first appellate court erred in · drawing the inference that need of the landlord may not be bona fide and it might be a pretext for increasing the rent or to evict the tenant. There is no pleading by the tenant that any attempt had ever been made by the landlord to enhance the rent during the period of 7 years E prior to the date of institution of the suit. Undoubtedly, the son of the landlord is continuing his service abroad for last several years and he did not appear in witness box to prove that he was willing to start business with his father, remains immaterial or cannot put balance in favour of the appellant-tenant for the reason that the landlord himself wants to start his business in the suit premises. Therefore, it remains immaterial whether his son wants to join his business or not. [Para 30] [236-H; 237-A-F] F 0 G

2.4. In the factual situation, no fault is found with the judgment of the High Court that it has committed an error reaching the conclusion that finding recorded by the first appellate court were perverse. However, in the facts and H circumstances of the case, the High Court did not DINESH KUMAR v. YUSUF ALI 22·7 consider as what would be the magnitude of his A business, and whether partial eviction of the appellant could serve the purpose of both the parties. In order to meet the ends of justice, the landlord/respondent should recover possession of half of the area of the premises. [Paras 31, 32 and ~3] [237-G-H; 238-A-B] B Case Law Reference: (1996) 5 sec 353 AIR 1988 SC 1422 . Relied on. Retied on. AIR 1998 SC 1639 Relied on. AIR 1999 SC 2507 Relied on. AIR 1998 SC 602 Relied on. AIR 2001 SC 2896 Relied on. AIR 1998 SC 2730 Relied on. AIR 1994 SC 678 Relied on. AIR 1976 SC 830 Relied on. AIR 2001 SC 1273 Relied on. AIR 1998 SC 3063 Relied on. AIR 2000 SC 2108 Relied on. AIR 2002 SC 1428 Relied on. AIR 2007 SC 2306 Relied on. AIR 2007 SC 248 Relied on.