Summary
The Supreme Court upheld eviction of a shop tenant for the landlord’s son’s bona fide business need. Work undertaken by the son during the long litigation did not defeat the need established at filing. An adjacent shop later vacated was required for another son and did not supply suitable alternative accommodation. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed with three months to vacate.
Issues
- Whether the son’s subsequent business activity defeated bona fide requirement.
- Whether the later vacation of an adjacent shop provided suitable alternative accommodation.
- When subsequent events may affect relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 12(1)(f), Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961The established business need and absence of reasonably suitable alternative premises supported eviction. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- The concurrent appellate findings established bona fide requirement at the institution of proceedings. The son was not required to remain idle throughout litigation; subsequent utensil business did not by itself extinguish that need. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Although rights ordinarily crystallise at filing, material subsequent events may be considered under the stated conditions of relevance, prompt introduction and fairness. No general rule excluded all later events. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The adjacent shop was recovered for another son’s bona fide need and was not suitable alternative accommodation for the son involved here. The additional material did not displace the findings supporting eviction. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- The eviction judgment was confirmed and the tenant granted three months to vacate and deliver possession. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed; eviction upheld. Tenant granted three months to vacate and hand over possession. No costs.