1998 INSC 0621
                                              Vishwanath and Another

                                                           Vs

                                                    Hidayatt Ullah

                                     Civil Appeals Nos. 5383-5384 of 1997

                                        (Dr. A. S. Anand, V. N. Khare JJ)

                                                      19.08.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. The appellant is the landlord while the respondent is the tenant. The appellant who is a retired
government servant filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 23-A(b) of the
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the ground of bona fide personal
requirement for stating his business. It was also pleaded in the eviction petition that the son of
Appellant 1 was an unemployed youth having no source of income and that he was also to join the
father in running the business. The precise pleadings in this behalf were contained in para 10 of the
petition. That paragraph reads thus :

                  "10. That Applicant 2 is a widow and Applicant 1 is a retired government servant
                  from the Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur. Applicant 2 is a widow and is unemployed at
                  present. Similarly, Applicant 1's son sudhir Kumar is also unemployed having no
                  source of income. The shop in occupation of the non-applicant is bona fide needed
                  by the applicants and for need of the son of Applicant 1 to start a kirana shop therein.
                  The applicants have no other alternative suitable accommodation of their own in the
                  city of Jabalpur to start a kirana business. The non-applicant is, therefore, liable to be
                  evicted from the suit premises for the need of the applicants under Section 23-A(b)
                  of the Act."

2. The petition for eviction was contested. Evidence was led by the parties. While the proceedings
were pending before the Rent Controlling Authority, an application was filed by the tenant stating
that the son of the appellant, for whose benefit also the shop was required to be got vacated, had
since joined employment at Jabalpur and, therefore, the bona fide need of the son no longer
subsisted. To that application, a reply was filed by the landlord stating that the employment of the
son was not relevant, since the disputed premises were required by the landlord for running his own
business where the son was going to join him and, therefore, the premises were required by the
landlord for his bona fide need of starting his business. After considering the evidence on the
record, the learned Rent Controlling Authority, vide order dated 2-7-1996, came to the conclusion
that the appellant had established his bona fide need and consequently allowing the petition, directed
the tenant to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the landlord. The order of the Rent
Controlling Authority was put in issue by the tenant through a revision petition in the High Court.
On 1-11-1996, the High Court set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling
Authority. The landlord is in appeal before us by special leave.

3. In upsetting the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, the High Court
observed that there had been no clear pleadings to assert that the landlord required the premises for
opining a kirana shop for himself and, therefore, eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need
of the landlord was not established.

4. There appears to be a compete misreading of the pleadings by the High Court. Even a cursory
look at para 10 of the petition (supra) shows that the landlord had unequivocally pleaded that the
premises were required for starting a business for himself as well as for the benefit of his son. There
was therefore, no warrant to say that pleadings in that behalf were lacking. Besides the pleadings,
the High Court also failed to appreciate the evidence on the record which clearly that the landlord
bona fide required the premises for starting his own business. The opinion of the High Court that
since the landlord, a retired government servant, had not stated that his pension was not adequate, it
implied that there was no bona fide need for him to start any business is wholly unsustainable and
not at all rational. There is no presumption that a pensioner who has adequate pension cannot have
bona fide need to start his business after retirement. The High Court not only misread and
misunderstood the pleadings, but also ignored the vital evidence which had been brought on the
record to establish the bona fide need of the landlord. The order of the High Court, interfering with
that of the Rent Controlling Authority, is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. These appeals,
therefore, succeed and are allowed. The impugned order is, consequently, set aside. The order of the
Rent Controlling Authority is hereby restored. No costs.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the tenant submits that since the tenant has been in occupation
of the shop for more then three decades, he would require sufficient time to look for some
alternative accommodation and to shift to that place. Learned counsel for the appellant-landlord
does not oppose the prayer for grant of time but submits that some reasonable time may be granted
to him.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on this aspect of the case, we grant time to the
tenant-respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on
or before 31-7-1999, on his filing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks.