Back
2006(1) JLJ 20
R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and Shantanu Kemkar, J.
T.R. Sah v. Smt. Kundan Kaur and others
Second Appeal No. 478 of 1996; against the judgement and decree of IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal, passed in civil Appeal No. 8-A of 1995, affirming the judgement and decree of Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal, passed ill Civil Suit No. 35-A of 1993; Decided on 25.8.2005.
Whether the landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant under Sections 12(l)(e) and 12(1)(h) of the Act, without specifically pleading that he would occupy the premises after its reconstruction, is not entitled to the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(e) or/and 12(1)(h) of the Act ‘?‘ [Para 2
Held: When a suit is filed by a landlord under section 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(h), pleading that he requires the accommodation for his own use and also states that he wants to demolish and reconstruct the building, and he establishes a case for eviction under section 12(l)(e), he will be entitled to an order under Section 12(1)(e) and the averments relating to demolition and reconstruction will be constructed as a part of ground under section 12(1)(e). In such an event, it will be immaterial whether he demolishes the building or not. When a Court grants an eviction under clause (e), it shall dispose of the claim under clause (h) as having become infructuous or rendered redundant. When granting a decree under section 12(l)(e), the question of applying section 12(7) or section 18 does not arise. On the other hand, if the ground under section 12(1)(e) is rejected, then the Court may consider the ground under section 12(1)(h) independently subject to section 12(7) and section 18. The question of law on which the petition was admitted, is answered thus: Mere invoking the ground under section 12(1)(h) or filing the case under section 12(1)(h) in addition to the ground under section 12(1)(e) will not invalidate the claim for eviction under section 12(1)(e). Where the bona fide requirement of the landlord under section 12(1)(e) of the Act is proved, the claim can be allowed under section 12(1)(e), ignoring the ground under section 12(1)(h). 1998(1) MPJR 462 overruled AIR. 1964 SC 1676, AIR 1962 SC 1696, 1985 JLJ 302 (SC) and AIR 1997 SC 2453 followed. [Paras 12 & 13
LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½] 12¼1½ ¼t½] 12¼7½ rFkk 18& &csn[kyh okn /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu fMØhr& &[kaM ¼t½] vfHkopfur fd;k x;k gks rc Hkh] vuko‘;d gks tkrk gSa& &/kkjk 12¼7½ rFkk 18 ds v/khu mica/k ykxw ugha gksrsA D;k og Hkw&Lokeh tks ;g vfHkopfur fd, fcuk fd ifjlj ds iqufuZek.k ds i‘pkr og mls vf/kHkksx esa j[ksxk] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ vkSj 12¼1½ ¼t½ ds v/khu vius vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh dh bZIlk djrk gS] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ;k@vkSj /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼t½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dh fMØh dk gdnkj ugha gS\ vfHkfu/kkZfjr% tc Hkw&Lokeh }kjk /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ vkSj 12¼1½ ¼t½ ds v/khu okn ;g vfHkopfur djrs gq, Qkby fd;k tkrk gS fd mls vius Lo;a ds mi;ksx ds fy, LFkku dh vko‘;drk gS] rFkk ;g Hkh dgrk gS fd og bekjr fxjk dj iqufuZfeZr djuk pkgrk gS] rFkk og /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fy, ekeyk LFkkfir dj nsrk gS rc og /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu vkns‘k dk gdnkj gksxk rFkk bekjr fxjkus vkSj iqufuZfeZr djus ls lacaf/kr çdFku /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu vk/kkj ds Hkkx ekus tk,¡xsA ,slh n‘kk esa ;g egRoghu gksxk fd og bekjr fxjkrk gS ;k ughaA tc U;k;ky; [kaM ¼³½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dh fMØh çnku djrk gS rc [kaM ¼t½ ds v/khu nkos dk fuiVkjk fu‘Qy ;k vuko‘;d gks tkus dh Hkk¡fr djsxkA /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu fMØh çnku djrs le; /kkjk 12¼7½ ;k /kkjk 18 ykxw djus dk ç‘u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA nwljh vksj] ;fn /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu vk/kkj ukeatwj gks tkrk gS] rc U;k;ky; /kkjk 12¼7½ vkSj /kkjk 18 ds v/;/khu] /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼t½ ds v/khu vk/kkj ij Lora= :i ls fopkj dj ldrk gSA fof/k ds ftl ç‘u ij ;kfpdk xzg.k dh xbZ Fkh] mldk mÙkj bl çdkj fn;k tkrk gS% /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼t½ ds v/khu vk/kkj dk vkJ; ysus ;k /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu vk/kkj ds vfrfjDr /kkjk 12¼1½¼t½ ds v/khu ekeyk Qkby djus ek= ls /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dk nkok vfof/kekU; ugha gks tkrkA tc vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh dh okLrfod vko‘;drk lkfcr dj nh xbZ gks rc /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼t½ ds v/khu vk/kkj vuns[kk djrs gq, nkok /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼³½ ds v/khu eatwj fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1998 ¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 462 myVk x;kA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1676] , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1696] 1985 ts ,y ts 302 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 2453 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
1. This is tenant's Second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.1996 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/95 affirming the judgment and decree dated 1.5.1995 passed by the first Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal, in Civil suit No. 35-A/93 decreeing the eviction suit in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents under section 12(1) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short the 'Act').
2. This appeal was admitted on 5.5.1997 on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the requirement of the respondents could be said to bona fide under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 when the appellant has filed a suit under section 12(1)(h) of the Act also '?"
When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge. being of the view of that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi v. Thakur Natthu Singh' [1988 (1) MPJR 462] was not correctly decided. referred the matter for decision to the larger Bench by order dated 8.11.2000, as the following point arose for consideration:
"Whether the landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant under sections 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(h) of the Act, without specifically pleading that he would occupy the premises after its reconstruction, is not entitled to the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(e) or/and 12(1)(h) of the Act ?"
Facts of the case
3. Plaintiff Sadhu Singh (since dead) instituted a civil suit (CS No. 35A/87/l993) for eviction of his tenant (the defendant/appellant) from the suit premises known as 'Walia House', Idgah Hills, Bhopal, which had been let-out for residential purpose, on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. He alleged that the suit premises was required bona fide for the occupation of himself and his family and that they had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of their own in their occupation in the city of Bhopal; and that the roof of the suit premises had become damaged, as the premises was situated on a slope, and constant flow of rain water directly on the building had damaged the roof and that the Engineer had expressed an opinion that the roof requires to be dismantled for necessary repair. The plaintiff also alleged that he was residing in a rented premises and his landlord had initiated eviction proceedings against him.
3.1 During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff (Sadhu Singh) died and his legal representatives, namely, widow, five sons and seven daughters (Respondents herein) came on record and continued the proceedings. They amended the plaint alleging that respondents 1 and 11 were residing with Sardar Sadhu Singh in a rented premises and an eviction decree has been passed against them in RCS No. 69-A/86 on the file of II Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal and, therefore, they required the suit premises for their residential purpose.
3.2 The defendant/appellant denied the need put forth by the landlord. The learned trial judge framed appropriate issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit on 1.5.1995 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the grounds mentioned in Section l2(l)(e), (g) and (h) of the Act, were established.
3.3 The tenant (appellant) challenged the said judgment and decree by filing and appeal in RCA No. 8A/95. The learned IX Add\. District Judge, Bhopal by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal in part. He affirmed the decree for eviction under section 12 (l) (e) of the Act but set aside the decree for eviction under section 12 (1) (g) and (h) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Legal Question
4. We will not deal with the question of law. It is evident from the scheme of the Act, that a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant on one or more of the grounds enumerated under section 12(1) of the Act. Clause (e) provides for eviction of a tenant, if the accommodation is required bona fide for residential use [c
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
