Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Mangilal, Appellant
Versus
Sugan Chand Rathi (deceased) and after him his heirs and legal representatives and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 307 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Addl. Solicitor General of India, (M/s. O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant; M/s. M. C. Setalvad and A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocates, (M/s. Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with them), for Respondents.
The provisions of section 4 of the Accommodation Act are in addition to those of the Transfer of Property Act and before a tenant can be evicted by a landlord he must comply both with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and those of section 4 of the Accommodation Act. The Accommodation Act does not in any way abrogate Ch. V of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with the leases of immovable property A notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is essential for bringing to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant. Unless the relationship is validly terminated the landlord does not get the right to obtain possession of the premises by evicting the tenant. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not provide for the satisfaction of any additional requirements, But then, section 4 of the Accommodation Control Act steps in and provides that unless one of the several grounds set out therein is established or exists, the landlord cannot evict the tenant. [Para 4
(2) Transfer of Property Act-S.106-notice to quit-construction of-tenant must get fullest benefit - computation of period of fifteen days.
The provision contained in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is evidently intended to confer a facility on the tenant and must therefore be so construed as to enable him to have the fullest benefit of that facility. A liberal construction of a notice which would deprive the tenant of the facility of having the benefit of the minimum period of fifteen days within which to vacate is not permissible
A notice which gives more than fifteen days clear notice to the tenant to vacate the premises is valid.
In calculating the fifteen days notice the day on which the notice is served is excluded. ILR 28 Cal. 118 approved. 45 IA 222 distinguished. [Para 4
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (M.P.)-S. 4 (a)-ground under-need not exist on the date of suit - his being defaulter after a month of the notice of demand is sufficient.
The ground set out in clause (a) of section 4 of the Accommodation Control Act need not be shown by the landlord to exist at the date of institution of the suit. All that is necessary for him to establish is that the tenant was infact in arrears, that he was given one month's notice to pay up the arrears and that inspite of this he failed to pay those arrears within one month of service of notice on him. [Para 6
In furnishing the ground to the landlord the legislature intended to give only a limited protection to the tenant or to put it slightly differently, the legislature intended to give protection only to a tenant who was diligent and regular enough in the matter of payment of rent. [Para 7
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (M.P.) - S.4 (a) - Transfer of Property Act – S. 106 - impact of both the provision effect.
The effect of clause (a) of section 4 of the Accommodation Control Act is merely to remove the bar created by the opening words of section 4 on the right which a landlord has under section 106 of the T.P. Act to terminate a tenancy of a tenant from month to month by giving a notice terminating his tenancy. It does not convert a periodic tenancy into one of fixed or indefinite duration nor insert therein a clause of re-entry on the ground of non-payment of rent. The character of the tenancy as one from month to month remains, but to it is added a condition that the unfettered right to terminate the tenancy conferred by section 106 will be exercisable only if one of the grounds set out in section 4 of the Accommodation Control Act is shown to exist. [Para 8
(5) Transferor Property Act – S.106 - acceptance of rent after giving an invalid notice -again a valid notice given after receiving the rent-no waiver of the subsequent notice.
Acceptance of arrears of rent after giving an invalid notice to quit does not amount to a waiver of a valid notice given subsequently. [Para 9
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (M.P.) - S.4 (a) - composite notice of demand of arrears and to quit - quit notice invalid - acceptance of rent tendered after a month of the receipt of the notice - no waiver of demand notice.
The composite notice to quit and pay the arrears within one month does not by itself furnish the plaintiff with the right to institute a suit for eviction when the notice was invalid according to section 106 of the T. P Act. Till the plaintiff acquired that right by giving a valid notice under section 106, the landlord is entitled to accept the rent which accrued due from month to month and the defendant was liable to pay the rent whenever it fell due till the relationship of landlord and tenant was put an end to Acceptance of rent after such a notice, would not by itself operate as waiver so far as the right accruing under section 4 (9) is concerned. [Para 9
(7) Interpretation of Statutes - words of the law clear - Court 'cannot add to it – language should he given its natural meaning-Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (M.P.) – S.4 (a).
The language of clause (a) of Section 4 of the Accommodation Control Act must be given its natural meaning. There is no warrant for modifying that language because while dealing with other grounds set out in other clauses the legislature has used different language. It is not open to a Court to usurp the functions of a legislature by adding words to the clause nor again is their scope for placing an unnatural interpretation on the language used by the legislature and impute to it an intention which cannot be inferred from the language used by it by basing ourselves on Ideas derived from other laws intended to give protection to the tenants from eviction by landlords. [Para 6
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. :
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the defendant s appeal in which he had challenged the decision of the courts below ordering his ejectment from certain premises which are in his occupation as the tenant of the plaintiffs.
2. It is common ground that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs and the rent of the premises in his occupation was Rs. 110/- p.m. It is not disputed that the defendant was in arrears of rent from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959 to the extent of Rs. 1,020/-. On April 11, 1959 the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendant bringing to his notice the fact of his being in arrears of rent for 12 months and requiring him to remit to them Rs. 1,020/- within one month from the date of service of notice and stating that on his failure to do so, a suit for ejectment would be filed against him. In addition to this the notice called upon the defendant to vacate the premises by April 30, 1959 upon two grounds :
(1) that the premises were required by the plaintiffs "genuinely for business"; and
(2) that the defendant had sub-let a portion of the premises to two persons without the permission of the plaintiffs and. without having any right to sub-let the premise.
This notice was received by the defendant on April 16, 1959. On June 25, 1959 the defendant sent a reply to the notice enclosing with it a cheque for Rs. 1,320/-. It may be mentioned that this amount consisted of the rental arrears as well as the rent due right up to June30, 1959. The plaintiffs accepted the cheque and cashed it on July 4, 1959 and gave a fresh notice on July 9, 1959 requiring the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of the month of July. In their notice the plaintiffs also stated that they had cashed the cheque under protest. The defendant did not vacate the premises, and therefore, the present suit for eviction was instituted on August 14, 1959.
3. The plaintiffs claim for eviction on the ground that the premises were required by them bond fide for the purpose of their business and that the defendant had illegally let them out was negatived by the courts below and, therefore, must be left out of question. The only question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendant upon the ground that the latter was in arrears of rent for one year and had failed to pay the arrears within one month of the service of the notice dated April 11, 1959 upon him. The tenancy being from month to month it was open to the plaintiffs to terminate it by giving 15 days notice expiring at the end of the month of the tenancy as provided for in S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The premises are, however, situated in Jabalpur in which the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (No. 23 of 1955) (herein referred to as the Accommodation Act) is in force. Section 4 of the Act provides that 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 grounds set out in that section. One of the grounds set out in that section is that the tenant has failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a written notice, of demand from the landlord. It is because of this provision that before the plaintiffs could succeed it was necessary for them to establish that the defendant had failed to pay rental arrears within one month of the receipt by him of a notice of demand. From the undisputed facts it is clear that the defendant was in fact in arrears of rent and had failed to pay it within the time prescribed by cl. (a) of S. 4. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, however, in spite of these circumstances the plaintiffs suit could not have been decreed because :
(1) the notice of April 11, 1959 was invalid for the purpose of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the defendant did not have 15 clear
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
