Back
2005(1) JLJ 173
Chandresh Bhushan, J.
Bajranglal Verma v. Smt. Gyaso Bai and others
Second Appeal No. 307 of 2001; against the decree and judgment of
IX Additional District Judge, Gwalior, passed in Civil Appeal
No. 79-A of 2000, reversing the decree and judgment passed by
X Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 7-A of 1996;
Decided on 29.7.2004.
The appellant was a tenant in a portion of a house bearing Municipal No. 30/1608/1 (hereinafter referred as "Suit Premises"). The appellant was inducted as a tenant in it by one Manorama Devi Falke who died issueless. Ramchandra Rao and Man Singh Rao were the sons of her only sister. No notice of any kind of transfer by Ram Chandra Rao etc. or by the respondents was ever given to the appellant.
One Smt. Gyaso Bai, now deceased, had submitted an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in respect to the suit premises before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, against the appellant on‘ the ground of requirement for her adopted son Raman Lal, respondent No.1. That application being not filed by landlord of the categories enumerated in section 23J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") was transferred and ultimately was registered as a civil suit in the Court of 10th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior.
In the said civil suit before the 10th Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court"), the respondent No.1, contending that he was the adopted son of late Gyaso Bai who along with respondents No.2 to 4 had bought the suit premises from Ramchandra Rao etc., has become the landlord of the suit premises, prayed for eviction of the appellant on various grounds falling under clause (a), clause (f), clause (o) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the said Act. Later on, he gave up his claim of eviction of appellant on the grounds mentioned under said clauses (o) and (f). Subsequently, during the hearing of appeal, claim for eviction of appellant under said clauses (a) and (o) was also given up by the respondent No. 1. Thus, his claim remained for eviction of appellant on the ground mentioned under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of Act only. [Paras 2 to 4
The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1. However, the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in an appeal by the respondent No. 1... reversed the impugned judgment and decree by the learned trial Court.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said finding of the learned first Court of appeal was erroneous. [Paras 6 & 7
Held : The appellant has not claimed title in himself. He has also not claimed title in any third person but he has simply claimed that besides sellers Ramchandra Rao and Mansingh Rao there were others also who were his co-landlords and all of them not being the landlords, the respondents No.2 to 4 and Gyasobai did not derive his title as the only landlords (para 2 of written statement). His other contention was that respondent No. 1 is not the adopted son of his co-landlord Gyaso Bai. This, in the opinion of this Court, was nothing else but a derivative title of the respondents. The appellant in the present case has not renounced his character as a tenant nor has he set up a title either in himself or in any third person. It has been interpreted by the learned First appellate Judge as a denial of title of the landlord which adversely and substantially affects the interest of the owner. 2002(2) JLJ 312 followed. 2002(1) MPACJ 6 distinguished. [Para 12
Unless there is a notice of transfer of title in favour of successor landlord or an attornment of tenancy, tenant‘s assertion that such landlord is merely a co-owner does not amount to denial of title. It has been observed by the apex Court in that case [(2000) 1 SCC 451] that to constitute denial of title of the landlord, a tenant should renounce his character as tenant and set up title or right inconsistent with the relationship of landlord and tenant either in himself or in a third person. (2000) 1 SCC 451 followed.
[Paras 13 & 14
LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼x½ &&& Hkw&Lokeh ds gd dk izR;k[;ku && vfHk/kkjh us Lo;a dk gd LFkkfir ugha fd;k && fdlh fdUgha vU; O;fDr;ksa dk Hkh ugha && iwfoZd Hkw&Lokfeksa ds gd dk izR;k[;ku ugha fd;k x;k && dsoy O;qRiUu gd vkf{kIr && Hkw&Lokeh dk nÙkd&xzg.k Hkh vkf{kIr && csn[kyh fMØh ds fy, ,slk izR;k[;ku i;kZIr ughaA ¿ iSjk 9À
vihykFkhZ uxjikfyd Ø- 30@1@608@1 ds edku ¼,rfLeu~i‘pkr **oknxzLr ifjlj** ds :i eas fufnZ"V½ ds ,d va‘k esa vfHk/kkjh FkkA vihykFkhZ dks mlesa vfHk/kkjh euksjek nsoh Qkyds }kjk j[kk x;k Fkk ftldh fu%larku voLFkk esa e`R;q gks xbZA jkepanz jko rFkk ekuflag jko mldh ,dek= cgu esa iq= gSA jkepanz jko vkfn }kjk vFkok izR;FkhZx.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks dHkh&Hkh fdlh Hkh izdkj ds varj.k dhs dksbZ Hkh lwpuk ugha nh xbZA
fdlh Jherh X;klksckbZ us] tks vc e`r gS] oknxzLr ifjlj ds laca/k esa HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh] Xokfy;j ds le}k vihykFkhZ ds fo#) e-iz- fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 23 ds v/khu vkosnu vius nÙkd iq= je.kyky] izR;FkhZ Ø-1 ds fy, vko‘;drk ds vk/kkj ij Qkby fd;k FkkA e-iz- LFkku fua;=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼,rfLeu~i‘pkr~ **vf/kfu;e** ds :i esa fufnZ"V½ dh /kkjk 23&¥ eas ifjxf.kr izoxksaZ ds Hkw&Lokeh }kjk Qkby ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k og vkosnu LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k rFkk var eas mls n‘ke flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k oxZ 2] Xokfy;j ds U;k;ky; esa flfoy okn ds :i eas jftLVªhd`r fd;k x;kA
n‘ke flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k oxZ 2] Xokfy;j ¼,rfLeu~i‘pkr~ **fopkj.k U;k;ky;** ds :i esa fufnZ"V½ ds le{k mDr flfoy okn eas izR;FkhZ Ø-1 us ;g ladFku djrs gq, fd og ml fnoaxr X;klksckbZ ck nÙkd iq= gS ftlus izR;FkhZ Ø- 2 ls 4 ds lkFk] jkepanz jko vkfn ls oknxzLr ifjlj Ø; fd;k Fkk] vkSj og oknxzLr ifjlj dk Hkw&Lokeh cuk x;k gS] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½] [kaM ¼p½] [kaM ¼.k½ vkSj [kaM ¼x½ ds v/khu vkus okys fofHkUu vk/kkjksa ij vihykFkhZ dh csn[kyh dh izkFkZuk dhA okn esa mlus mDr [kaM ¼.k½ vkSj ¼p½ ds v/khu mfYyf[kr vk/kkjksa ij vihykFkhZ dh csn[kyh dk viuk nkok R;kx fn;kA ifj.kkeLo:i] vihy dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku izR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk mDr [kaM ¼d½ vkSj ¼.k½ ds v/khu vihykFkhZ dh csn[kyh dk nkok Hkh R;kjx fn;kA bl izdkj] mldk nkok vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼x½ esa mfYyf[kr vk/kkj ij gh vihykFkhZ ds csn[kyh ds fy, ‘ks"k jgkA ¿ iSjk 2 ls 4À
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us izR;FkhZ Ø-1 dk okn [kkfjt dj fn;kA rFkkfi] fo}ku uoe~ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh‘k] Xokfy;j us izR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk dh xbZ vihy esa---- fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, fu.kZ; vkSj fMØh myV fn,A
vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk ladFku fd;k x;k gS fd fo}ku izFke vihy U;k;ky; dk mDr fu"d"kZ xyr FkkA ¿ iSjk 6 ,oa 7À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vihykFkhZ us Lo;a ds gd dk nkok ugha fd;k gSA mlus fdlh vU; O;fDr ds gd dk nkok ugha fd;k gS vfirq dsoy ;g nkok fd;k gS fd foØsrk jkepanz jko vkSj ekuflag jko ds vfrfjDr ijO;fDr Hkh Fks tks mlds lg&Hkw&Lokeh Fks rFkk og lHkh Hkw&Lokeh ugha gksus ds dkj.k izR;FkhZ Ø- 2 ls 4 rFkk X;klksckbZ dh ,dek= Hkw&Lokeh ds :i esa mldk gd O;qRiUu ugha gqvk ¼fyf[kr dFku dk iSjk 2½ mldk vU; ladFku ;g gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 mldh lg&Hkw&Lokeh X;klksckbZ dk nÙkd iq= ugha gSA bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa ;g izR;FkhZx.k ds O;qRiUu gd fd vfrfjDr dqN ugha FkkA izLrqr ekeys esa vihykFkhZ us vfHk/kkjh dh viuh izd`fr R;kxh ugha gS] u mlus Lo;a dk vFkok fdlh ijO;fDr dk gd LFkkfir gh fd;k gSA bldk fuoZpu fo}ku izFke vihy U;k;k/kh‘k us Hkw&Lokeh ds gd ds izR;k[;iu ds :i esas fd;k gS ftlls Lokeh dk fgr izfrdwyr% vkSj lkjr% izHkkfor gksrk gSA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 312 vuqlfjrA 2002¼1½ ,e ih , lh ts 6 izHksfnrA
tc rd mÙkjkf/kdkjh Hkw&Lokeh ds i{k esa varj.k dh lwpuk ugha gks vFkok ¼vfHk/kkjh us½ Lo;a dks mldk vfHk/kkjh ugha ekuk gks] vfHk/kkjh dk ;g izk[;ku fd Hkw&Lokeh] lg&Lokeh ek= gS] gd fd izR;k[;ku dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA ml ekeys ¿¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 451À esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk leqfDr dh xbZ gS fd Hkw&Lokeh ds gd dk izR;k[;ku gksus ds fy, vfHk/kkjh dks viuh vfHk/kkjh dh izd`fr R;kxuk pkfg, rFkk Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh ds laca/k esa vlaxr gd ;k vf/kdkj Lo;a esa ;k ijO;fDr esa LFkkfir djuk pkfg,A ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 451 vuqlfjrA
1. Aggrieved by a decree and judgment dated 25.6.2001 pronounced by 9th Additional District Judge, Gwalior for his eviction on the ground under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 i.e., on the ground of denial of title in favour of the respondent No.1, in an appeal preferred by the said respondent No. 1 against judgment and decree dated 11.12.2000 of 10th Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior dismissing her suit for eviction and arrears of rent, this second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/tenant.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was a tenant in a portion of a house bearing Municipal No. 30/1608/1 (hereinafter referred as "Suit Premises"). The appellant was inducted as a tenant in it by one Manorama Devi Falke who died issueless. Ramchandra Rao and Man Singh Rao were the sons of her only sister. No notice of any kind of transfer by Ram Chandra Rao etc. or by the respondents was ever given to the appellant.
3. On Smt. Gyaso Bai, now deceased, had submitted an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in respect to the suit premises before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, against the appellant on the ground of requirement for her adopted son Raman Lal, respondent No. 1. That application being not filed by landlord of the categories enumerated in section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act'?) was transferred and ultimately was registered as a civil suit in the Court of 10th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior.
4. In the said civil suit before the 10th Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court''), the respondent No.1, contending that he was the adopted son of late Gyaso Bai who alongwith respondents No. 2 to 4 had bought the suit premises from Ramchandra Rao etc., has become the landlord of the suit premises, prayed for eviction of the appellant on various grounds falling under clause (a), clause (f), clause (o) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the said Act. Later on, he gave up his claim of eviction of appellant on the grounds mentioned under said clauses (o) and (f). Subsequently, during the hearing of appeal, claim for eviction of appellant under said clauses (a) and (o) was also given up by the respondent No. 1. Thus, his claim remained for eviction of appellant on the ground mentioned under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of Act only.
5. With respect to the said ground under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, it is not disputed that the appellant had denied the title of respondent No. 1 Raman Lal contending firstly that the transfer deed dated 8.9.1987 by Ramchandra Rao, Man singh Rao and Uday Singh Rao in favour of Gyaso Bai' and respondents No. 2 to 4 was not a transfer by all previous owners of the said premises and secondly that the respondent No. 1 Raman Lal was not a validly adopted son of Gyaso Bai.
6. The learned trial Court held that respondent No. 1 Raman Lal was the laI1dlord of appellant and was the validly adopted son of late Gyasobai who had in turn bought the premises from the previous landlord. At the same time, the learned trial Court further held that since the appellant has not disputed that originally Smt. Manorama Devi Falke and thereafter, Ramchandra Rao etc. were his landlords and has not claimed title in himself, there was no disclaimer to title as required for a ground of eviction under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of Act. Thus, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1. However, the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in an appeal by the respondent No.1, holding that as the appellant has denied even the title of Ram Chandra Rao, Man Singh Rao and Uday Singh Rao also by asserting that besides them, there were other persons who were joint-owners of the suit premises and of respondent No.1, by challenging the fact of adoption, h
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
