In Brief
A landlord sought to evict a tenant from a shop under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bona fide requirement for his son's utensils business. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the son already engaged in business. However, the appellate courts upheld eviction. The Supreme Court held that the crucial date for assessing bona fide requirement is the date the eviction suit was filed (1992), not later. The son subsequently engaging in business pending litigation does not negate an established bona fide need. Subsequent events, including the landlord obtaining another shop, cannot be taken into account to deny eviction relief. The appeal was dismissed as concurrent findings of fact by lower courts were not vitiated by any perversity.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.