In Brief
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from a non-residential shop under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bona fide requirement for his son Rajendra Kumar's utensils business. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the son was already in business. The appellate courts reversed, holding the son was unemployed at the date of the suit and the landlord had genuine bona fide need without suitable alternative accommodation. The Supreme Court upheld the eviction, confirming that the crucial date for assessing bona fide requirement is when the suit is filed, not subsequent events, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on this issue deserve deference.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.