Mohanlal Vs. Samokhanlal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 147; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] liability of insurer - third party insurance held, the insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of chapter xi of the act, particularly section 147 thereof. thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. the insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled]. sections 147 & 96 & m.p. m.v. rules, 1994, rule 97; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] control of transport vehicles m.p. rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting sections 147 and 145 of the m.v. act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled]. - even if it be presumed that anand kumar was assisting his father even then it cannot be said that the need of anand kumar stands satisfied. bona fide requirement by way of reasonable standard no doubt has to be considered but, landlord is the best judge in this regard. govindan nambiar, (1995) 2 rcr 126. landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has complete freedom in the matter. major satish kumar, (1996) 1 rcr 378 it has observed as under :the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and he has a complete freedom in the matter.ordert.s. doabia, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court below which has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.the brief facts for the purposes of this appeal be noticed :one bhagchand filed a suit under section 12(1)(f) of the madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the act). the plea taken by him was that the premises were required for the bona fide business purpose of his son, anand kumar. the business to be started by sale of readymade garments. the trial court came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide. this finding was affirmed by the first appellate court. the matter was taken to this court. a second appeal bearing no. 60 of 1982 was registered. this court on 14th december, 1987, remanded the matter back. the order of remand was passed with a view to determine as to whether ram singh, one of the tenants had in fact vacated a non-residential accommodation and as to whether this accommodation would satisfy the need of the landlord or not. the remand was made to the first appellate court. after remand, the first appellate court has recorded a conclusion that the shop said to have been vacated by ram singh is in fact not a shop. it is a godown. the location of this godown is said to be in vegetable market (sabzi mandi). the court below has opined that this godown is not fit for carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments. it also indicated that there is a lot of slush in the area where the premises vacated by ram singh are located. it was accordingly concluded that the premises vacated by ram singh are not fit for carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments. it was also concluded that anand kumar is still unemployed and he does require the premises for the business which his father bhagchand wants him to undertake.3. it be seen that bhagchand died during the pendency of the suit. the legal heirs were brought on the record. anand kumar for whose need the premises were required is also on the record. he figures as respondent no. 2 in this appeal.4. i have gone through the pleadings and evidence on the record. it be seen that it stands established that anand kumar is an unemployed. an effort was made to bring out that this bhagchand, the deceased father of anand kumar was carrying on the business of commission agency in grains. even if it be presumed that anand kumar was assisting his father even then it cannot be said that the need of anand kumar stands satisfied. he does require the premises for carrying on new business. he has shown preference for carrying on the business of readymade garments. it has also come on the record that he is having requisite funds for the purpose of running this very business. as such, it cannot be said that merely because anand kumar was assisting his father in the business of commission agency, he is not supposed to have another accommodation for readymade garments.5. the judicial precedents dealing with this aspect of the matter be noticed :where the landlord is seeking ejectment for separate non-residential premises and if it is found to be having requisite means and financial capacity and is ready and willing to start his shop, then his need would be definitely bona fide. this view, was expressed by the supreme court in a. k. veeraraghava iyenger v. n. v prasad, (1996) 1 rcr 268.eviction was sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of shop of tenant's son. no other shop was available to the son except the shop in question. bona fide requirement by way of reasonable standard no doubt has to be considered but, landlord is the best judge in this regard. such, was the view expressed by the rajasthan high court in the case reported as alimuddin v. chandrika prasad and ors., (1996) 1 rcr 536.landlady was running a shop. she required additional accommodation. landlady is not required to prove that her income from existing business was not sufficient to maintain her family. see : gopal krishna gupta v. ivth additional district judge, kanpur, (1995) 1 rcr 365.landlord can eject a tenant if he can show that there are several reasons for not occupying another accommodation, which is lying vacant. the landlord in the present case wanted the business to be started for the benefit of his children. see : raghavan v. govindan nambiar, (1995) 2 rcr 126.landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has complete freedom in the matter. it is not the concern of the court to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or prescribe for him a standard of his own. in smt. sakhi bai v. major satish kumar, (1996) 1 rcr 378 it has observed as under :'the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and he has a complete freedom in the matter. it is not the concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. these observations find place in the judgment of the supreme court of india as reported in smt. prativa devi v. t.v. krishnan, (1987) 2 rcr 580 (sc).'6. with regard to the premises vacated by ram singh, it be seen that the location-wise, these premises were found to be not suitable for carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments. as a matter of fact, the finding recorded is that the premises in question is not a shop but a godown. in this godown, some vegetables and other materials available in the vegetable market are stored. it has also been pointed out that there is a hospital in the area in question and some medicines are also being stored in these premises. the appreciation of evidence by the court below that the premises in question are not fit for running the business of readymade garments cannot be faulted.7. this appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed with costs. costs rs. 500/-. the appellants shall remain in possession for a period of two months. this is subject to the condition that he would deposit upto date arrears of rent and also give an undertaking that he would hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. let an undertaking in this regard be given to the first appellate court within a period of fifteen days from today.

Judgment:
ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below which has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

The brief facts for the purposes of this appeal be noticed :

One Bhagchand filed a suit under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plea taken by him was that the premises were required for the bona fide business purpose of his son, Anand Kumar. The business to be started by sale of readymade garments. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide. This finding was affirmed by the first appellate Court. The matter was taken to this Court. A second appeal bearing No. 60 of 1982 was registered. This Court on 14th December, 1987, remanded the matter back. The order of remand was passed with a view to determine as to whether Ram Singh, one of the tenants had in fact vacated a non-residential accommodation and as to whether this accommodation would satisfy the need of the landlord or not. The remand was made to the first appellate Court. After remand, the first appellate Court has recorded a conclusion that the shop said to have been vacated by Ram Singh is in fact not a shop. It is a godown. The location of this godown is said to be in vegetable market (sabzi mandi). The Court below has opined that this godown is not fit for carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments. It also indicated that there is a lot of slush in the area where the premises vacated by Ram Singh are located. It was accordingly concluded that the premises vacated by Ram Singh are not fit for carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments. It was also concluded that Anand Kumar is still unemployed and he does require the premises for the business which his father Bhagchand wants him to undertake.

3. It be seen that Bhagchand died during the pendency of the suit. The legal heirs were brought on the record. Anand Kumar for whose need the premises were required is also on the record. He figures as respondent No. 2 in this appeal.

4. I have gone through the pleadings and evidence on the record. It be seen that it stands established that Anand Kumar is an unemployed. An effort was made to bring out that this Bhagchand, the deceased father of Anand Kumar was carrying on the business of commission agency in grains. Even if it be presumed that Anand Kumar was assisting his father even then it cannot be said that the need of Anand Kumar stands satisfied. He does require the premises for carrying on new business. He has shown preference for carrying on the business of readymade garments. It has also come on the record that he is having requisite funds for the purpose of running this very business. As such, it cannot be said that merely because Anand Kumar was assisting his father in the business of commission agency, he is not supposed to have another accommodation for readymade garments.

5. The judicial precedents dealing with this aspect of the matter be noticed :

Where the landlord is seeking ejectment for separate non-residential premises and if it is found to be having requisite means and financial capacity and is ready and willing to start his shop, then his need would be definitely bona fide. This view, was expressed by the Supreme Court in A. K. Veeraraghava Iyenger v. N. V Prasad, (1996) 1 RCR 268.

Eviction was sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of shop of tenant's son. No other shop was available to the son except the shop in question. Bona fide requirement by way of reasonable standard no doubt has to be considered but, landlord is the best judge in this regard. Such, was the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case reported as Alimuddin v. Chandrika Prasad and Ors., (1996) 1 RCR 536.

Landlady was running a shop. She required additional accommodation. Landlady is not required to prove that her income from existing business was not sufficient to maintain her family. See : Gopal Krishna Gupta v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, (1995) 1 RCR 365.

Landlord can eject a tenant if he can show that there are several reasons for not occupying another accommodation, which is lying vacant. The landlord in the present case wanted the business to be started for the benefit of his children. See : Raghavan v. Govindan Nambiar, (1995) 2 RCR 126.

Landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has complete freedom in the matter. It is not the concern of the Court to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or prescribe for him a standard of his own. In Smt. Sakhi Bai v. Major Satish Kumar, (1996) 1 RCR 378 it has observed as under :

'The law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and he has a complete freedom in the matter. It is not the concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. These observations find place in the judgment of the Supreme Court of India as reported in Smt. Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1987) 2 RCR 580 (SC).'

6. With regard to the premises vacated by Ram Singh, it be seen that the location-wise, these premises were found to be not suitable for carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments. As a matter of fact, the finding recorded is that the premises in question is not a shop but a godown. In this godown, some vegetables and other materials available in the vegetable market are stored. It has also been pointed out that there is a hospital in the area in question and some medicines are also being stored in these premises. The appreciation of evidence by the Court below that the premises in question are not fit for running the business of readymade garments cannot be faulted.

7. This appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-. The appellants shall remain in possession for a period of two months. This is subject to the condition that he would deposit upto date arrears of rent and also give an undertaking that he would hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. Let an undertaking in this regard be given to the first appellate Court within a period of fifteen days from today.