- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Har Narain Daga v. Heeralal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent-landlord owns a building in Kandoi Bazar, Jodhpur. He resides on the first floor while the appellant-tenant occupies a ground-floor room used as a shop. In 1973, the landlord filed a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, asserting two grounds: (i) the room was needed to construct a staircase to the first floor, and (ii) he required the premises for his bona fide personal use. The tenant denied both grounds.
The trial court rejected the staircase claim but decreed eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The first appellate court affirmed this decree. A second appeal to the Rajasthan High Court was dismissed. The tenant then sought relief before the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the concurrent finding of bona fide personal necessity recorded by the courts below was legally sustainable.
- Whether the courts correctly applied the “comparative hardship” test mandated by Section 14 of the Act before ordering eviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Tenant)
- The landlord’s claim amounts to a mere desire, not a bona fide necessity; therefore, the eviction decree is unwarranted.
- Section 14 requires an assessment of comparative hardship; a proper evaluation would show that eviction would cause the tenant greater hardship than any inconvenience to the landlord.
Respondent (Landlord)
- Nearly three decades have elapsed since the suit was filed, and the landlord’s family of six (wife and four sons) continues to suffer for want of adequate space.
- The prolonged deprivation and growing needs of the family reinforce the genuineness of the landlord’s requirement.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the judgments of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court. It observed that bona fide personal necessity is fundamentally a question of fact. All three courts had concurrently accepted the landlord’s need for the premises for his own use and for the educational coaching he provides to students. The Court found no perversity or legal error in these concurrent findings.
Regarding comparative hardship under Section 14, the trial court had balanced the landlord’s residential and educational needs against the tenant’s commercial use. It noted that the tenant’s family operates businesses elsewhere and that the disputed room is used only intermittently. This assessment was upheld by the appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that the finding did not suffer from any serious illegality, and the High Court rightly refrained from re-appreciating evidence in second appeal.
The Court also took note of the High Court’s safeguard: if the landlord fails to use the room for the stated purpose, the tenant may seek restoration under Section 15.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the eviction decree and dismissed the tenant’s appeal with costs, assessing the hearing fee at ₹5,000.
Implications: The tenant must vacate the premises, while retaining the statutory right to regain possession should the landlord misuse the property. The judgment applies established principles on concurrent factual findings and comparative hardship, without creating new precedent.
D.P Mohapatra, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the tenant of a room situated on the ground floor of a building in Kandoi Bazar in Jodhpur City of which the respondent is the landlord. The tenant was using the room as a shop. The landlord resides on the first floor of the building. He filed a suit in 1973 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the room is needed for construction of a staircase to the first floor of the building and also for his bona fide personal necessity under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”). The tenant contested the suit refuting both the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord.
3. The trial court rejected the case of the landlord that the room was required for building a staircase; but accepted the plea of bona fide personal necessity. The trial court decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the tenant. On appeal filed by the tenant the appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court and maintained the decree of eviction. The tenant carried the matter further in 2nd appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan which proved unsuccessful. Hence this appeal.
4. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the courts below committed error in accepting the plea of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord. According to Shri Jain on the material on record, the finding should have been recorded that it is not a case of bona fide necessity but a mere wish of the landlord to get the tenant evicted from the shop/room in question. Shri Jain further contended that before accepting the plea of bona fide personal necessity of the premises taken by the landlord the courts below should have considered the question of comparative hardship which is a mandatory requirement under Section 14 of the Act. If this question is properly considered in the light of the material on record, submitted Shri Jain, it is apparent that the hardship that would be caused to the tenant by the decree of eviction is much greater compared to the inconvenience, if any, caused to the landlord.
5. Shri Badri Das Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1, supporting the judgment under challenge, submitted that though 27 years have rolled by since the suit was filed the landlord is yet to get possession of the premises on account of which he and members of his family (wife and four sons) have been facing difficulties. Shri Sharma further contended that the prolonged suffering to which the landlord and members of his family have been put should also be considered by this Court while judging the matter.
6. We have perused the judgments passed by the trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court. The question of bona fide personal necessity is essentially a question of fact on which all the three courts have concurrently held against the appellant. The case of the respondent that he needs the room on the ground floor for use by himself and his four growing children (sons) has been accepted by the courts below. The courts have also accepted the case that the respondent who is an assistant teacher in a government middle school is often approached by students for giving private coaching, for the purpose of which he needs the room on the ground floor. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below the High Court was justified in not interfering with the finding in the second appeal.
7. On the question of comparative hardship as provided under Section 14 of the Act we find that the trial court having accepted the case of the landlord that his need for the room on the ground floor as a part of his residential accommodation for use of himself and members of his family, compared it against the use of the room by the tenant for commercial purpose. The court took note of the fact that members of the family of the tenant are carrying on business at different places in the town and the room in question is used by the appellant and some employees occasionally. No particular use of the room appears to have been brought forth in the material placed by the tenant. Weighing the present use of the premises in question by the tenant and the need for its use by the landlord the trial court held that the balance for weighing the comparative hardship tilted in favour of the landlord. The said finding was accepted by the appellate court and the High Court. The finding does not suffer from any serious illegality. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for declining to interfere with it in second appeal. Further we find that the High Court has taken care to protect the interest of the tenant in making the observation that in case the room in question is not used by the landlord for the purpose for which the eviction has been ordered then he (tenant) will be entitled to be put in possession of the room as provided in Section 15 of the Act.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee assessed at Rs 5000.
Alert