Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 168
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a second appeal filed by a Raigarh landlord who sought eviction of his long-term tenant on the grounds of bona fide residential need and alleged material alterations to the property. Justice Dhirendra Mishra upheld the findings of the first appellate court, which had earlier set aside the trial court’s eviction decree.
The dispute centered on a house in Raigarh that the plaintiff-landlord had rented out for a monthly rent of one hundred rupees. He claimed he needed the property for his personal residence, stating he lived with a large family in a space that was no longer suitable for him, particularly because he was a heart patient who had undergone bypass surgery. He also argued that the tenant stopped paying rent and carried out unauthorized additions and alterations.
The tenant denied the allegations and asserted that the landlord wanted to increase the rent. During the proceedings, the tenant amended his written statement to show that the landlord had acquired several other accommodations in Raigarh during the pendency of the suit, including an identical house adjacent to the disputed property. According to the tenant, these properties were either lying vacant or had been let out for non-residential use at the landlord’s own discretion.
The trial court accepted the landlord’s claim of bona fide need and also held that the tenant had made substantial alterations without permission. It decreed eviction in 2002.
However, the first appellate court examined the same evidence and found that the landlord had not been forthcoming about the number of properties he owned in Raigarh. More importantly, it concluded that the landlord had an alternative accommodation of the same size right next to the suit house, which he had admitted securing in an earlier decree. Because the landlord never explained why that house was unsuitable for his residence, the appellate court held that his need was not bona fide.
The appellate court also rejected the claim regarding material alterations. It found that the replacement of worn-out wooden doors with iron shutters, raising the height of a boundary wall, and installing a latrine did not diminish the value of the property or harm the landlord’s interest. Under Section 12(1)(m) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, eviction requires proof of substantial damage or detriment, which was not established.
Justice Mishra agreed with these conclusions. He noted that the landlord failed to offer any convincing reason why the vacant adjacent accommodation could not meet his residential needs, especially since the house was identical in size to the disputed premises. The court observed that bona fide requirement must be based on real, pressing necessity rather than a desire to choose one property over another without justification.
On the issue of alterations, the High Court held that the changes made by the tenant were neither harmful nor detrimental and might even have increased the property’s value.
The court also took note of the tenant’s long residence of thirty-five years and the fact that both the tenant and his son were physically handicapped, though this did not form the primary basis for the final decision. Finding no error in the first appellate court’s judgment, Justice Mishra dismissed the second appeal and confirmed that no grounds for eviction had been proved. There was no order as to costs.
Case Details : Second Appeal No. 434 of 2002, Natthulal vs. Kishorilal (16.03.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rajeev Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Govindram Miri, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 – Section 12(1), Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 – Section 25
Cases Referred:
P.S. Pareed Kaka and Ors. v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb (2004) 5 SCC 241; Akhileshwar Kumar and Ors. v. Mustaquim and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 462; Bhojraj Ramesh Chandra v. Ghanshyam Das Agrawal 2001 (2) MPLJ 8; S.S. Nirmalchand v. Munnalal Motilal through Ghasiram Samaiya 1971 MPLJ 17; Pratap Narayan and Ors. v. District Judge Ajamgarh and Anr. (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 459; Dinanath v. Puranlal (2001) 5 SCC 705.
======
किरायेदारी – बेदखली – bona fide आवश्यकता:
प्रथम अपीलीय न्यायालय ने ट्रायल कोर्ट द्वारा पारित बेदखली आदेश को यह कहते हुए रद्द कर दिया कि वादी/मकान मालिक के पास विवादित मकान के ठीक बगल में वैकल्पिक रूप से समान और उपयुक्त आवास उपलब्ध था। इसलिए वादी को विवादित मकान की bona fide आवश्यकता सिद्ध नहीं हुई। इसी आधार पर यह द्वितीय अपील दायर की गई थी।
प्रश्न यह था कि क्या निचली अदालत सही थी जब उसने कहा कि वादी/अपीलकर्ता विवादित आवास की bona fide आवश्यकता साबित करने में असफल रहा?
न्यायालय ने पाया कि मकान मालिक यह नहीं बता सका कि उसके पास उपलब्ध वैकल्पिक मकान उसकी आवासीय आवश्यकता क्यों पूरी नहीं कर सकता था, और वह 12–13 वर्षों से खाली क्यों पड़ा था। वादी ने यह भी नहीं कहा कि वह वैकल्पिक मकान गैर-आवासीय था। इसके विपरीत, प्रतिवादी ने स्पष्ट कहा कि वह मकान पहले बैंक को किराये पर था और उससे पहले भी कई वर्षों से खाली पड़ा हुआ था। इसलिए अपीलीय न्यायालय द्वारा लिया गया निर्णय सही माना गया कि मकान मालिक के पास उचित वैकल्पिक आवास था और इसलिए उसे विवादित मकान की bona fide आवश्यकता नहीं थी।
द्वितीय अपील खारिज कर दी गई।
किरायेदारी – आवास में परिवर्तन:
दूसरा मुद्दा यह था कि क्या प्रथम अपीलीय न्यायालय सही था जब उसने माना कि वादी/मकान मालिक यह सिद्ध नहीं कर सका कि प्रतिवादी/किरायेदार ने बिना लिखित अनुमति के ऐसा परिवर्तन किया था जिससे मकान मालिक के हितों को नुकसान पहुँचा हो।
न्यायालय ने कहा कि जब तक यह सिद्ध न हो कि किए गए परिवर्तन से मकान का मूल्य कम हुआ है या मकान मालिक के हितों को वास्तविक हानि पहुँची है, तब तक केवल “अनुमति के बिना परिवर्तन” के आधार पर बेदखली का आदेश नहीं दिया जा सकता। प्रतिवादी द्वारा किए गए परिवर्तन—जैसे दरवाजों का बदलना, दीवार की ऊँचाई बढ़ाना आदि—से मकान के मूल्य को कोई क्षति नहीं हुई और न ही मकान मालिक के हितों को नुकसान पहुँचा। इसलिए प्रथम अपीलीय न्यायालय द्वारा वादी का दावा खारिज किए जाने में कोई त्रुटि नहीं पाई गई। द्वितीय अपील इस आधार पर भी खारिज कर दी गई।
