Back
2009(3) Supreme 847
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Sanghvi, JJ.
Kusum Devi — Appellant
versus
Mohan Lal (dead) by L.Rs., — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2876 of 2001
Decided on : 08-04-2009
(b) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Section 12(1)(e) – High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings of the courts below about bona fide need of the landlady. (Para 10)
(c) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Section 12(1)(e) and (g) – There is no provision in the Act preventing a landlord from raising grounds enumerated under clauses (e) and (g) together in a suit for eviction – Once the bona fide requirement under clause (e) is held to have been proved, the mere fact of having simultaneously pleaded under clause (g) does not affect the bona fide requirement of a landlord under clause (e). (Para 14)
(d) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Section 12(1)(e) and (g) r/w sections 17 and 18 – Clauses (e) and (g) of section 12(1) are mutually exclusive, but not destructive of each other – In case decree for eviction is passed only under clause (e), the landlord would be entitled to move into the premises without or after making any repairs and the provisions of Section 17 of the Act would apply – But if the decree is passed under clause (g) alone, the provisions of Section 18 would apply – However, if decree is passed under both clauses (e) and (g), the same shall be deemed to have been passed mainly under clause (e), and Section 17 would alone apply and not Section 18. (Para 25)
AIR 1964 SC 1676; (2004) 3 SCR 412; (1997) 5 SCC 315; (1984) 4 SCC 447; (1956) AC 688; (1959) AC 20 – Relied upon.
AIR 1959 Calcutta 181; 1980 (1) ILR 340 – Cited with approval.
1998 (1) MPJR 462 – Distinguished.
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant herein purchased a two-storied building, namely from one Mahindra Raja Jain and respondent herein, who was inducted as tenant by the ex-owner Mahindra Raja Jain in the first floor of the said house and was residing in the suit premises at the time of its purchase by the appellant, became tenant of the appellant.
2. Since the respondent had not paid rent since 1979, the right to recover the same was assigned to the appellant by the ex-owner. Failure of the respondent to pay rental resulted in a notice being sent by the appellant on 29th August, 1986, but despite that respondent did not pay rental to the appellant.
3. On 20th July, 1987, appellant filed a suit for eviction against the respondent on grounds, inter alia, of bona fide need for residential purpose under Section 12(1) (e) and for carrying out repairs in the suit premises as it had become unsafe for human habitation under Section 12(1)(g), which repairs, according to the appellant, could not be carried out until the suit premises were vacated by the respondent.
4. The trial court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff on all the grounds taken in the suit and directed the respondent-tenant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellant within one month. The said judgment was upheld by the appellate court.
5. The High Court, while reversing the judgment of the first appellate court, held that no decree could be granted if the grounds enumerated under clauses (e) and (g) are taken together in a suit for eviction as both the claims could not be held to be bona fide.
Finding of the Court :
High Court erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the courts below.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
B.N. Agrawal, J.—
1. The appellant - landlady filed a suit for eviction of respondent-tenant from the suit premises under Section 12 (1)(a),(c),(e), (g) and (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].
Decreeing the suit, the trial court directed the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellant and to pay the unpaid rental of Rs. 1080/- to her within one month. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal in the Court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Damoh. Dismissing the appeal, the first appellate court held that the appellant was entitled to get vacant possession of the suit premises from the respondent only under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, following the judgment in the case of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vs. Thakur Nathu Singh1, 1998 (1) MPJR 462, a decision of the same High Court - while allowing the appeal and setting aside the decrees of eviction granted by both the courts below under clauses (e) and (g) of Section 12(1) of the Act, held that no decree could be passed if the grounds enumerated under clauses (e) and (g) are taken together in a suit for eviction as both the claims could not be held to be bona fide. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. Briefly put, the facts are that the appellant herein purchased a two-storied building, namely, Ward No. 1, Damoh, by a registered Sale Deed dated 13.6.1986 from one Mahindra Raja Jain and respondent herein, who was inducted as tenant by the ex-owner Mahindra Raja Jain in the first floor of the said house and was residing in the suit premises at the time of its purchase by the appellant, became tenant of the appellant. Since the respondent had not paid rent since 1979, the right to recover the same was assigned to the appellant by the ex-owner. Failure of the respondent to pay rental resulted in a notice being sent by the appellant on 29th August, 1986, but despite that respondent did not pay rental to the appellant. On 20th July, 1987, appellant filed a suit for eviction against the respondent on grounds, inter alia, of bona fide need for residential purpose under Section 12(1)(e) and for carrying out repairs in the suit premises as it had become unsafe for human habitation under Section 12(1)(g), which repairs, according to the appellant, could not be carried out until the suit premises were vacated by the respondent. It was stated that since - at the time of purchase - the accommodation available with the appellant on the ground floor was inadequate, the appellant had to hire a room in the same locality for the purpose of keeping the household goods. It was further stated that keeping in view the large family of the appellant consisting of a retired husband, five married daughters, who keep visiting her regularly, and marriageable sons, the appellant and his family was facing acute shortage of residential accommodation.
3. The respondent contested the said suit and filed a written statement, denying the title of the appellant as well as the grounds on which his eviction from the suit premises was sought, stating as follows:-
“Since the year 1953-54, I am a tenant in the suit house. I had taken this house on rent from Sunder Lal Jain......The plaintiff used to live in the ground floor portion of the house along with her husband and one child and the remaining members of the family had been married. The Plaintiff had taken on rent some rooms in Asati Dharmashala. Mohinder Raja is the son of Sunder Lal Jain, who used to live in London. This house has been sold by Mohinder Raja to the Plaintiff.....Kusum Devi had sent me notice before the Nalish...I had never given any rent to Kusum Devi....This is true to suggest that in the year 1965 I came to know that Mohinder Raja is the son of Sunder Lal Vaidya Raj....I ind
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
