Back
2002(2) Supreme 269
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Gupta -Appellant
versus
Vijay Kumar Agrawal -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6321 of 1999
Decided on 28-2-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.S. Khanduja, Advocate.
For the Respondent : A.K. Chitale, Sr. Advocate and Niraj Sharma, Advocate.
.
Held : A conjoint reading of Section 11A, 12, 23-A, 23-J and Section 45 would show that in regard to the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord who does not fall with the specified colonies in 23-J, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit and pass decree under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. It follows that the Civil Court rightly entertained counter claim under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act so the decree passed by it is not vitiated for want of jurisdiction. In the result, though we do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court, in view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge but hold that the High Court has rightly dismissed the second appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but in the facts and in the circumstances of the case with no order as to costs. At the close of the hearing the learned counsel for the appellant prays six month s time to vacate the premises. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the respondent we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if a period of six months is granted to the appellant to vacate the suit premises and hand over peaceful possession of the same to the respondent. Accordingly, we grant time till August 31, 2002, subject to his filing an usual undertaking with a period of four weeks from today. (Paras 10, 11 & 12)
ORDER
The appellant is the tenant of the premises - 1st Floor, 46 M.L.B. Colony, Gwalior (M.P.) (for short the accommodation ) which was initially owned by one Sushil Kumar who sold it to the respondent. Thus, the appellant became the tenant of the respondent. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent being Case No. 453A of 1996 in the court of 9th Civil Judge, II Class, Gwalior, seeking injunction against the respondent. In the said suit the respondent filed a counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. claiming eviction of the appellant, inter alia, under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short the Act ). The appellant contested the counter claim filed by the respondent and pleaded that it was not maintainable. The trial court, after framing necessary issues and on considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. was maintainable and that the respondent required the suit premises bona fide. Accordingly, it decreed the counter claim of the respondent and dismissed the suit for the relief of injunction filed by the appellant by judgment dated January 31, 1998. In regard to the decree of eviction passed on the counter claim of the respondent, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the court of the 6th Additional District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.). The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on October 8, 1998. Against that judgment the unsuccessful appellant filed Second Appeal No. 621 of 1998 before the High Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated March 15, 1999 which is assailed in this appeal by special leave.
2. Mr. S.S. Khanduja, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of the provisions of Chapter III-A the counter claim ought not to have been entertained by the Civil Court and that the respondent should have filed independent case in the court of the Rent Controller so the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Mr. A.K. Chitale, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has argued that Chapter III-A which was inserted in the Act in 1983, was later amended and confined to specified landlord, defined in Section 23-J thereunder, and as such the Civil Court rightly entertained the counter claim with regard to eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need for occupation as residence.
3. We may observe that maintainability of counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. is not canvassed before us. The discussion centered round the jurisdiction of Civil Court to pass decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement in the face of Section 23-A of the Act.
4. On the contentions urged before us the question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court erred in confirming the decree of eviction of the appellant passed by the Civil Court on the ground embodied in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.
5. A reference to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 12, Section 45, Sections 23-A and 23-J (in Chapter III-A) and Section 11-A of the Act will be relevant for our purpose.
6. Section 12 occurs in Chapter III which deals with control of eviction of tenant. Section 12(1)(e), with which we are concerned here, is quoted hereunder:
"12. Restriction on eviction of tenants-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds:-
(a) *** *** ***
(b) *** *** ***
(c) *** *** ***
(d) *** *** ***
(e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
