- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent-landlord filed a suit seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from premises described as a shop measuring 24″ × 22″ with an attached verandah measuring 6″ × 22″, where the appellant runs a restaurant business. Eviction was sought on the ground of the landlord’s bona fide requirement, stated as the need of the landlord’s son to start a TV shop.
The trial court found the landlord’s need proved and ordered eviction. The High Court, in civil revision, affirmed the trial court’s order. The tenant appealed by special leave; special leave was granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- After a landlord’s bona fide requirement is found proved under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, whether the court must consider the statutory proviso requiring examination of partial eviction (if the tenant agrees) before ordering eviction from the entire premises.
- Whether it is legally permissible to presume that partial eviction is impracticable merely because the suit premises consist of “one shop room,” irrespective of the room’s dimensions and divisibility.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused on the proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The proviso mandates that where the court considers the landlord’s reasonable requirement may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from only a part of the premises (and allowing the tenant to remain in the rest), and the tenant agrees, the court shall pass a decree accordingly and fix proportionately fair rent for the retained portion.
The Court explained that the stage for applying this proviso arises only after the landlord has already proved the requirement constituting the ground for eviction. Here, since the landlord’s requirement had been found proved, the court was required to consider the further statutory enquiry contemplated by the proviso. An order for eviction from the entire premises could be made only if partial eviction, as structured in the proviso, could not substantially satisfy the landlord’s requirement.
The Court found that this statutory requirement was overlooked by the courts below. The High Court had instead proceeded on the stated basis that, where the premises consist of one shop room and the requirement is to set up a business, a presumption arises that directing the tenant to vacate a portion would not substantially meet the landlord’s need. The Court held this approach to be fallacious because it effectively presupposed indivisibility of single-room premises regardless of dimensions, even where the space might be capable of division to meet both parties’ needs.
The Court emphasized that the feasibility of partial eviction is a question of fact to be examined in each case, after the landlord’s requirement is found proved. Because this enquiry had not been undertaken, the matter needed to be remitted to the trial court, which was identified as the proper forum to conduct the fact-finding exercise in the first instance.
The Court noted that the tenant had indicated agreement to partial eviction; however, the landlord was not agreeable to dividing the premises into two equal halves. Given the absence of the requisite fact enquiry under the proviso, the Court directed that the matter go back to the trial court for fresh examination limited to the question of divisibility and whether partial eviction would substantially satisfy the landlord’s need. The parties were permitted to adduce evidence for this limited purpose.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; REMANDED IN PART: The appeal was allowed, and the eviction orders of the trial court and the High Court directing eviction from the entire premises were set aside to the extent that they failed to consider partial eviction under the proviso to Section 11(1)(c). The matter was remitted to the trial court to examine afresh, treating the landlord’s need as proved, and limiting the enquiry to whether the premises can be divided and whether eviction from a part would substantially satisfy the landlord’s requirement.
The direct consequence is that the tenant is not, at this stage, liable to be evicted from the entire premises on the basis of the existing judgments; instead, the trial court must conduct the statutorily required fact enquiry on partial eviction, allowing the parties to lead evidence on that limited question and disposing of the matter expeditiously. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications beyond enforcing compliance with the statutory proviso in this case.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent brought a suit for eviction of the appellant from the premises comprising a shop measuring 24″ × 22″ with a verandah attached to it measuring 6″ × 22″ in which the appellant is carrying on his business of running a restaurant. The respondent-landlord claimed eviction on the ground of his bona fide need which was stated to be the need of a son to start a TV shop. This need of the landlord was found proved by the trial court and the High Court has affirmed that order in a civil revision. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. The proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 lays down that where the court thinks that the landlord's reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only and allowing the tenant to continue the occupation of the rest of the premises and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the court shall pass a decree accordingly and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant. Obviously, this situation is reached when the landlord has proved his requirement to make out a ground for obtaining eviction of the tenant. In the present case, landlord's requirement having been found proved, the court had to consider the matter further according to this proviso and an order for eviction from the entire premises could be made only if a decree for partial eviction in the manner provided could not substantially satisfy the landlord's requirement. This aspect has been completely overlooked even by the High Court which on the contrary has stated as under:
“In a case where the suit premises consist of one shop room and the requirement of the plaintiff is to set up a business, a presumption arises that the requirement of the plaintiff will not be substantially met if the defendant is directed to vacate a portion of the suit premises.”
4. It is obvious that the High Court proceeded on the basis that a presumption arises that where the premises comprises only one room, the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act is not attracted since its application is not practicable. Obviously, this assumption is fallacious since it presupposes indivisibility of a premises comprised of one room, irrespective of its dimensions and even when the room is big enough to permit division to satisfy the needs of the landlord as well as the tenant. It is a question of fact in each case whether such a partial eviction can be made or not. This enquiry has to be made by the court after reaching the conclusion that the landlord's requirement for occupation of the premises set up by him has been made out. In failing to do so, the courts below overlooked this statutory requirement.
5. In the first instance, this has got to be done by the trial court and, therefore, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the trial court.
6. The appellant-tenant has already indicated his agreement in this behalf and it is on this basis that the respondent was required by this Court order dated December 11, 1991 to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement, but on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the respondent is not agreeable to the suggestion of dividing the premises into two equal halves to be shared between the parties. The matter must, therefore, go back to the trial court.
7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgments of the trial court and the High Court ordering eviction from the entire premises are set aside to this extent. The trial court shall proceed to examine the matter afresh in the light of the requirement of proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act treating the landlord's need to be proved. It is clarified that the enquiry hereafter by the courts below is limited to this extent, that is, whether the premises can be divided and eviction of the tenant from a part of the premises can substantially satisfy the landlord's need. The parties would be entitled to adduce evidence in the trial court for this purpose and to this extent. The trial court shall proceed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Alert