Indrasen Jain vs Rameshwardas - 2004 Supreme(SC) 1605

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 1605

2005(1) Supreme 577
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Indrasen Jain —Appellant
versus
Rameshwardas —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2004
Decided on 17-12-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vimal Chandra S. Dave and Shailendra Narayan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sushil Kumar Jain, P.B. Bhagwat, Sarad Singhania, H.D. Thanvi, Ms. Ruchi Kohli and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961—Section 23J—Eviction petition under summary procedure filed by respondent landlord claiming to be a retired Govt. servant on ground of his personal bona fide need—Case of respondent that he retired as Principal of a private Govt. aided school which he had joined on deputation a few years before retirement in 1994 and earlier he was in State Education department—High Court allowed eviction in revisional jurisdiction—Appeal—Whether respondent was a retired Govt. servant so as to fall within definition of landlord given in Section 23J of the Act?—Retired teacher of a private aided school also received pension and he would not become Government servant merely for that reason—Production of pension slip by respondent thus could not establish that respondent was a Government servant—Best evidence to establish the fact would have been the letter of appointment or letter by which he was sent on deputation—Respondent could not be said to have established that he was a retired Government servant. (Paras 7 to 9)
(ii) M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961—Section 23A(b)—Eviction petition in respect of a shop tenanted premises on ground of personal bona fide need—Respondent landlord claimed to have retired in 1994 and wanted to set up business in suit shop—Petition allowed by High Court in revision—Appeal—Respondent had purchased suit premises shop in December 1999 and filed eviction petition in May 2001—Had respondent thought of starting business in 1999 he would have purchased a vacant shop—Sequence of events did not show that any bona fides on part of respondent—Eviction order was liable to be set aside.
Held : Even on the question of bonafide requirement of the suit premises, the respondent in our view has no case. In this connection, first aspect worth noting is that the respondent retired from service on 30th November, 1994. He purchased the suit property on 7th December, 1999. More than one year after the alleged purchase of the suit property, he issued a notice of eviction on 1st February, 2001 and ultimately filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal requirement for doing business in the shop on 24th May, 2001. If at all the respondent for purposes of keeping himself occupied or by way of supplementing his income after his retirement, needed to do a business, he would have felt such a need soon after his retirement in the year 1994. The suit property was purchased on 7th December, 1999, i.e. about five years after retirement. Even after 1999, if the respondent thought of starting some business of his own and purchased a shop for that purpose, he would have purchased a vacant shop rather than going in for a tenanted premises. This shows that even in 1999 he had no intention or desire to start a business. Then even after purchase of the property he waited for more than a year and issued a notice in February, 2001 and instituted eviction petition in the end of May, 2001, that is nearly 1 1/2 years after the purchase of the property. This entire sequence of events does not show any bonafides on the part of the respondent in setting up a case of bonafide requirement of suit premises. There is nothing to show how suddenly a need for doing business arose for the respondent in the year 2001. (Para 10)

Judgment

Arun Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th November, 2003 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby a Civil Revision filed by the respondent-landlord against the judgment of the Rent Control Authority, Indore was allowed. The Rent Control Authority, Indore had dismissed the landlord’s petition for eviction filed under Section 23A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The tenant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

2. Briefly the facts are : the respondent claiming to be owner of the suit premises sought eviction of the appellant tenant therefrom, on the ground of his personal bonafide need. The suit premises comprises of a shop of the size of 20.8 feet X 10.5 feet besides a small ante-room. The rent of the premises is Rs. 500 per month. The appellant is a medical practitioner and is carrying on his practice in the suit premises. The respondent sought eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises to start his own business of selling books and stationery. It was pleaded that the landlord did not own any other premises suitable for business purposes. The eviction petition was filed under the summary procedure contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act. The respondent-landlord claims to be a retired Government servant in order to bring himself within the definition of ‘landlord’ contained in Section 23J of the Act. The landlords falling within the meaning of landlord in Section 23J are entitled to avail of the summary procedure for eviction of tenants. The summary procedure is contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act which was introduced by way of amendment in 1983 to enable certain categories of landlords to have eviction proceedings disposed of expeditiously. The relevant provisions of Chapter IIIA are reproduced as under:

“Section 23-A. Special Provision for eviction of tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement — Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation namely:—

(a) ..............

(b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required “bona fide” by the landlord for the purposes of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any persons for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such persons has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.

Provided that ..........”

Section 23-C. Tenant not entitled to contest except under certain circumstances.—(1) The tenant on whom the summons is served in the form specified in the Second Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the accommodation unless he files within fifteen days from the date of service of the summons, an application supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Rent Controlling Authority as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or in default of his obtaining such leave, or if such leave is refused, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant. The Rent Controlling Authority shall in such a case pass an order of eviction of the tenant from the accommodation:

Provided that the Rent Controlling Authority may, for sufficient cause shown by the tenant, excuse the delay of the tenant in entering appearance or in applying f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday