Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA
RATANBAI - Appellant
Versus
CHETANDAS - Respondents
C. R. 1038 Of 1984
Decided On : 09/19/1985
EVICTION - ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT - SECTION 23(D)(3) - PRESUMPTION - REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD - BONA FIDE - RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - DE FACTO DOCTRINE - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a widow, filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of the non-applicant from the tenanted accommodation on the ground that she required the accommodation for starting the business of her major son Rajkumar, who was unemployed and had left his education. The Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application holding that the applicant failed to prove that she requires the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of her major son.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Rent Controlling Authority had not appreciated the evidence properly and had acted unreasonably in dismissing the applicant's claim for eviction. The court found that the applicant had made out a solid basis for her claim for eviction and that she required the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of her major son Rajkumar and that she had no other accommodation of her own available to her for that purpose in the town of Mandsaur.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. 2. Whether the applicant had made out a solid basis for her claim for eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. The court relied on the de facto doctrine, which states that the acts of an officer who is not a mere intruder or usurper but who holds office under color of lawful authority, though his appointment is defective, are generally as valid and binding as if they were the acts of an officer de jure. 2. The court held that the applicant had made out a solid basis for her claim for eviction. The court found that the applicant had stated on oath that she required the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of her major son Rajkumar, who was unemployed and had left his education. The court also found that the applicant had no other accommodation of her own available to her for that purpose in the town of Mandsaur.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, set aside the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, and allowed the application filed by the applicant. The non-applicant was directed to deliver possession of the tenanted accommodation to the applicant.
( 1 ) THIS revision under S. 23 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 31-8-1984 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandsaur, in case No. 5/83-84.
( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : The applicant is a widow. The applicant submitted an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, for eviction of the non-applicant from the tenanted accommodation on the ground that the applicant requires the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of her major son Rajkumar and that she was not in possession of any other accommodation of her own available to her for that purpose in the town of Mandsaur. On an application made by the non-applicant, the Rent Controlling authority granted leave to defend the action. The non-applicant contested the claim of the applicant. The Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application for eviction holding that the applicant failed to prove that she requires the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of her major son. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, the applicant has submitted this revision.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Rent Controlling Authority has not appreciated the evidence properly and has acted unreasonably in dismissing the claim for eviction.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicant supported the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and further contended that the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application because he was not duly appointed to act as the Rent Controlling Authority,
( 5 ) IN my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the Rent Controlling Authority has not appreciated the evidence properly and has acted unreasonably in dismissing the applicant's claim for eviction has force.
( 6 ) THE Rent Controlling Authority has observed that the applicant has not made out a solid basis for her claim for eviction. The applicant stated on oath that she required the tenanted accommodation for starting the business of her major son Rajkumar, who, is unemployed and has left his education. Rajkumar has stated on oath that he wants to start the business of electrical appliances and that he is not employed and he has left the education. The Rent Controlling Authority has not accepted the evidence of the applicant and her son on the ground that Rajkumar had no experience of electrical appliances and that he has also admitted that he sits on a 'kirana' shop of his brother. The Rent Controlling Authority has further observed that the applicant had increased the rent of the accommodation earlier and that she was only interested in enhancing the rent.
( 7 ) IN my opinion, the Rent Controlling Authority was not justified in negativing the requirement of the applicant on the evidence on record. Rajkumar stated that he has acquired knowledge about the electrical appliances. Even if it is not so and Rajkumar had no experience of electrical appliances that cannot be a ground for holding that he does not require the tenanted accommodation for starting his business. Rajkumar has left his education and is unemployed. In the circumstances, if the applicant and Rajkumar have pledged their oath that the tenanted accommodation is required for starting the business of Rajkumar, there is no reason not to accept their testimony.
( 8 ) ONE of the reasons given by the Rent Controlling Authority is that the applicant had enhanced the rent of me accommodation earlier. Now the last enhancement was 7 or 8 years prior to the filing of the application and when Rajkumar was a minor. There is no evidence that the applicant enhanced rent after Rajkumar has become major and required the tenanted accommodation for starting his business. Moreover, the Rent Controlling Authority has not taken into consideration
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
