USHABAI AND ORS V. M/S.BALKRISHNA BIHARILAL AND ORS INSC 87

The case Ushabai & Ors. v. M/s. Balkrishna Biharilal & Ors. (2006) revolved around a property dispute concerning the redemption of a mortgage and the subsequent eviction of tenants based on bona fide necessity under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.

Background: • Parties Involved: • Plaintiffs: Ushabai and her sons, legal heirs of Mahesh Parsai, who inherited the suit property. • Defendants: Sons of Balakrishna, who were tenants in the suit premises. • Property Details: • The suit premises were initially owned by Madhav Rao, who partitioned his properties, allotting the suit house to his son, Mahesh Parsai. • Mahesh Parsai mortgaged the property to Balakrishna (defendants’ predecessor) through a registered deed.

Key Events: 1. Mortgage Redemption: • On June 8, 1982, the plaintiffs redeemed the mortgage by paying the mortgage money to the defendants. 2. Eviction Notice: • Post-redemption, the plaintiffs sought eviction of the defendants, citing: • Bona Fide Need: Requirement of the premises for their son, Pramod, to start a business, under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. • Sub-letting: Allegation that the defendants had unlawfully sub-let the premises, under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Trial Court Proceedings: • The trial court concluded that: • The mortgage had not been effectively redeemed. • The plaintiffs failed to establish bona fide need or sub-letting. • However, it awarded mesne profits of ₹300 per month to the plaintiffs. 4. First Appellate Court Findings: • Both parties appealed. The appellate court determined that: • The mortgage was indeed redeemed, reinstating the landlord-tenant relationship. • The plaintiffs demonstrated a bona fide need for the premises for their son’s business. • No sufficient evidence of sub-letting was found. • The decree for mesne profits was overturned. 5. High Court’s Decision: • Upon further appeal, the High Court held that: • There was a complete surrender of tenancy rights in favor of the defendants due to the mortgage. • Consequently, the plaintiffs could not seek eviction based on grounds under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. 6. Supreme Court’s Judgment: • The Supreme Court observed that: • The mortgage had been redeemed, reinstating the plaintiffs’ ownership rights. • The High Court erred in its interpretation regarding the surrender of tenancy rights. • The issue of bona fide necessity was not adequately addressed by the High Court. • The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court to specifically assess whether the plaintiffs’ claim of bona fide necessity for their son’s business was justified.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized the importance of accurately interpreting the redemption of mortgages and the reinstatement of landlord-tenant relationships. It highlighted the necessity for courts to thoroughly evaluate claims of bona fide necessity under the relevant accommodation control statutes.