RUMA PAL, R.C.LAHOTI
Sheela – Appellant
Versus
Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash – Respondent
What is the legality of invoking Section 12(1)(c) for eviction when a tenant denies the landlord's title? What is the correct ground for eviction when the building is to be rebuilt, considering Section 12(1)(h) and Section 18 safeguards? What is the distinction between landlordship and ownership in the MP Accommodation Control Act, and how does it affect eviction under Section 12?
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.-The tenant is in appeal by special leave, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, maintained by the High Court, directing the tenant to be evicted from the suit accommodation, which is a shop, on the ground available under clauses (c) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter, the Act, for short).
2. The facts, relevant and not in dispute at this stage, are that the property of which the suit accommodation is a part was owned by late Khetsidas who inducted the defendant as a tenant. Khetsidas died issueless. However, he had adopted Prahlad Rai as a son. He had also executed a registered deed of will bequeathing his property to Prahlad Rai. Prahlad Rai has two sons, namely, Prem Prakash and Pawan Kumar. Prahlad Rai and his two sons have constituted a partnership which is registered as Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash.
3. The firm claiming itself to be the owner of the suit premises filed suit for ejectment of the tenant-defendant on two grounds, firstly, that the accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiffs for the purpose of continuing their own business, and sec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.