Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a second appeal filed by a 90-year-old man against his eviction from his rented shop (“disputed shop”), the Single Judge Bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal since the appellant did not provide any evidence that he was running his business and the disputed shop was bona fidely required for the respondent’s non-residential purposes.
Background
The respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement for non-residential purposes. The respondent’s son was operating a business in the name of “Fashion Men’s Wear,” and the disputed shop was situated beside it. Since the front part of the son’s shop was small, it was not clearly visible from the main road. Thus, the respondent claimed that he wanted to utilise the disputed shop to widen his son’s shop front. Expansion of the front portion would enhance the business; thus, the disputed shop was bona fide required for non-residential purposes.
The respondent further claimed that, except for the suit premises, he had no other shop to cater to his non-residential purposes. He contended that the appellant was old and not in a position to run any business. He had allegedly stopped purchasing new goods for the suit premises/ shop.
The appellant, a 90-year-old man, claimed that he had been regularly paying rent. Since the suit shop was his livelihood, he would require three years to vacate it and might not survive without the shop. He also contended that the respondent possessed other shops and did not bona fide require the disputed shop for non-residential purposes.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent regarding the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (“the Act”), but decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide need for his non-residential purposes, i.e., under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal, but it was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the Trial and Appellate Courts found that the respondent had successfully proved that the disputed shop was bona fide required for his non-residential purposes. Even otherwise, the location and ambience of the shop were important aspects that added to the business. At present, the front portion of the son’s shop was only 10 feet, and if the disputed shop was merged, then undisputedly the front of the son’s shop would become 18 feet, which would be much wider and add ambience to it.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the appellant was 90 years old, and it was difficult to accept that he would be effectively running his business. It was fairly conceded by the appellant that he had children, and he did not file any document to show that he was purchasing any goods from anybody to sell them at his shop. No books of accounts were filed to show that the appellant was selling goods from the disputed shop.
The Court remarked that the contention that if the appellant was evicted from the disputed shop, then he would not survive was shocking. “How can a tenant say that he should be allowed to retain the shop during his lifetime, otherwise he may not survive?”
The Court reiterated that the Appellate Court, in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless and until they are shown to be perverse, and no perversity could be pointed out by the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances, lack of any evidence by the appellant that he was running his business, and the fact that the addition of the front of the disputed shop would add ambience to the existing shop of the respondent’s son, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned judgments and dismissed the appeal.
[Khuman Singh v. Sanjay Goyal, Second Appeal No. 1238 of 2025, decided on 16-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Sunil Kumar Jain
For the respondent: Anand Raghuwanshi