Back
2004 Supreme(MP) 335
2005(2) JLJ 149
S.K. Seth, J.
Devendra Chaudhary and another v. Warsilal Dua
Second Appeal No. 539 of 2002; against the judgment and decree of I Additional District Judge, Neemuch, passed in First Appeal No. 22-A of 2001, reversing the judgment and decree of trial Court;
Decided on 8.4.2004.
U.K. Choukse for appellants;
D.D. Vyas with Smt. Anita Sharma for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)--Ss. 12(1) (a), 12(3) and 13(1) -- consistent defaults committed in depositing rent -no regular payments made by 15th of each succeeding month -- tenant rightly held not entitled to protection under S. 12(3) and liable to eviction under S. 12(1) (a).
Respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff‘ filed a suit for eviction against appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants‘) on the allegation that he is the owner and landlord of the Shop No.6 situated on Mhow Nasirabad Road, Neemuch (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit shop‘ for short). It was let out to defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- (Rs. Eight hundred) for commercial purposes for running office and sale of machinery parts. Although tenancy commenced from 1.9.1988, but a Rent Note was executed on 1.10.1988. Under the rent note a sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand only) was deposited by the defendants- tenants as security deposit for payment of rent. According to the plaintiff, defendants were irregular in payment of monthly rent. They had not paid rent for 58 months from September, 1989 to June, 1994 and defendants were in arrears amounting to Rs. 46,400/-. Even after adjusting security deposit and other sum which were paid by the tenants, still Rs. 14,400/was outstanding as arrear up to June, 1994. The tenancy was determined by the plaintiff by registered notice dated 25.11.1991. Even after determination of tenancy, defendants neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit in the year 1994 claiming eviction together with arrears of rent. Plaintiff had also set up bona fide need of his major son Harjeet Singh, who holds a BE degree and is working as a Civil Contractor, for running office in the suit shop. It was also alleged that in 1991 defendants put locks in the suit shop and did not use suit premises for more than six month. Thus, initially eviction was sought under S. 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (f) of the Act, however, during the trial plaintiff amended the plaint and also sought eviction under S. 12(1) (c) of the Act on the plea that contrary to the terms and conditions of the Rent Note, defendants allowed to set up an STD booth in the suit shop. The plaintiff also pleaded that his major son had obtained a premises on monthly rent of Rs. 650/- (Rupees six hundred fifty) and had opened his office in the said premises w.e.f. 15.8.1998. [Para 2 Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on each count. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff preferred the first appeal, which was allowed by the lower appellate Court and a decree of eviction was granted under S. 12(1) (a), (b), (c) of the Act. ‘ [Para 4
Whether lower appellate Court was justified in granting a decree u/s 12(1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act notwithstanding the deposit of rent by defendant in accordance with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act, thereby allowing him to take benefit of section 12(3) of Act? [Para 5
Held: Consistent defaults were persistently committed by the appellants with regard to payment of arrears of rent. Not only this, without there being any valid reason appellants failed to pay/deposit monthly rent by 15 of each succeeding month as has been rightly noticed by the lower appellate Court, yet ignoring all these glaring and successive defaults with regard to compliance of second limb of section 13(1), trial Court found that no ground under section 12(1) (a) was made out. In the considered opinion of this Court, lower appellate Court adopted the correct approach in this regard and properly held that appellants were not entitled to the benefit of section 12(3) of the Act. 2000(2) JLJ 1 (SC) followed. [Para 8
(2) Civil P.C., 1908--O. 14 R.1-- fact pleaded by plaintiff not denied by defendant in written statement -- issue need not be framed.
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-- S. 12(1) (b) and 12(1) (c) -- specific stipulation contained in rent note not to start any, other business apart from agreed one -- another business by son of tenant started without permission -- grounds established.
Whether lower appellate Court was justified in granting a decree U/S 12(1) (b) of the Act when admittedly that ground was not taken before the trial Court ? [Para 5
Held : In the rent note, a specific stipulation was made prohibiting appellants-defendants apart from carrying any business other than the one as mentioned in the rent note without prior permission of the plaintiff/landlord. Thus, in the perspective undisputed facts, the lower appellate Court rightly held that ground for eviction under section 12(1) (b) and (c) were also made out. Lower appellate Court rightly held that in absence of any specific denial, no issue was required to be framed in respect of ground under section 12(1) (b) specially keeping in view the admissions made by the appellant No. 1 in his deposition, Learned lower appellate Courts rightly granted decree for eviction based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not open to challenge in this second appeal. [Para 11
(4) Civil P.C., 1908-- O. 41 R. 22 -- cross-objections -- both the Courts below rejecting the plea of bonafide need of landlord -cross-objections on such ground cannot be entertained. [Para 6
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 2¼1½ ¼d½&12¼3½ rFkk 13¼1½& &HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus esa fujarj O;fDrØe dkfjr& &çR;sd ijorhZ ekl dh 15 rkjh[k dks fu;fer lank; ugha fd;k x;k& vfHk/kkjh /kkjk 12¼3½ ds v/khu laj{k.k dk xSj&gdnkj vkSj /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ;ksX; Bhd gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA
çR;FkhZ ¼,rfLeui‘pkr~ ^^oknh** dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ us vihykFkhZx.k ¼,rfLeu~ i‘pkr~ ^^çfroknh** dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ ds fo#) csn[kyh dk okn bl vfHkdFku ds lkFk Qkby fd;k fd uhep esa egw ulhjkckn ekxZ ij vofLFkr nqdku Ø-6 ¼,rfLeui‘pkr ^^oknxr nqdku** dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ dk og Lokeh vkSj Hkw&Lokeh gSA ;g çfroknhx.k dks #- 800@& ¼#i, vkB lh½ çfrekl HkkM+s ij dk;kZy; vkSj e‘khu iqtks± ds foØ; ds fy, okf.kfT;d ç;kstuksa ds fy, HkkM+s ij nh xbZ FkhA ;|fi vfHk/k`fr 1-9-1988 ls çkjaHk gqbZ] fdarq HkkM+kiu 1-10-1988 dks fu"ikfnr gqvk FkkA HkkM+ki= ds v/khu #- 22]000@& ¼#i, ckbZl gtkj dsoy½ dh jde çfroknh vfHk/kkjhx.k }kjk HkkM+s ds lank; dh çfrHkwfr dh Hkk¡fr fuf{kIr dh xbZ FkhA oknh ds vuqlkj] çfroknhx.k HkkM+s ds lank; esa vfu;fer FksA mUgksaus flracj 1989 ls twu 1994 rd 58 ekl dk HkkM+k lanÙk ugha fd;k Fkk vkSj çfroknhx.k ds Åij dqy #- 46]400@& cdk;k FksA çfrHkwfr fu{ksi vkSj vfHk/kkjhx.k }kjk lanÙk vU; jde lek;ksftr djus ds i‘pkr] Hkh twu 1994 rd #-14]400@& cdk;k dh Hkk¡fr vçkIr FksA oknh }kjk jftLVªhÑr lwpuk fnukad 25-11-1991 }kjk vfHk/k`fr lekIr dj nh xbZ FkhA vfHk/k`fr dh lekfIr ds i‘pkr Hkh çfroknhx.k us u rks HkkM+s dk cdk;k lanÙk fd;k vkSj u ifjlj [kkyh gh fd;kA blfy,] oknh us o"kZ 1994 esa HkkM+s ds cdk;k ds lkFk csn[kyh dk nkok djrs gq, okn Qkby fd;kA oknh us oknxr nqdku esa dk;kZy; [kksyus ds fy, vius o;Ld iq= dh okLrfod vko‘;drk Hkh vfHkdfFkr dh tks ch bZ fMxzh/kkjh gS vkSj flfoy Bsdsnkj dh Hkk¡fr dk;Z dj jgk gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdFku fd;k x;k gS fd o"kZ 1991 esa çfroknhx.k us oknxr nqdku ij rkyk yxk fn;k Fkk vkSj Ng ekl ls vf/kd okn ifjlj dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k FkkA bl çdkj] çkjaHk esa csn[kyh dh bZIlk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ rFkk 12¼1½ ¼p½ ds v/khu dh xbZ Fkh] rFkkfi] fopkj.k ds nkSjku oknh us okni= la‘kksf/kr fd;k vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼x½ ds v/khu Hkh bl vfHkokd ds lkFk csn[kyh dh bZIlk dh fd HkkM+ki= ds fuca/kuksa vkSj ‘krks± ds foijhr] çfroknhx.k us oknxr nqdku esa ,l Vh Mh cwFk [kksyuk vuqKkr fd;kA oknh us ;g vfHkdFku Hkh fd;k gS fd mlds o;Ld iq= us #- 650@& ¼#i, Ng lkS ipkl½ ekfld HkkM+s ij ,d ifjlj vfHkçkIr dj fy;k gS vkSj mDr ifjlj esa 15-8-1998 ls viuk dk;kZy; [kksy fy;k gSA ¼iSjk 2½
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ekeyk çR;sd fcanq ij [kkfjt dj fn;kA okn dh [kkfjth ls O;fFkr gksdj oknh us çFke vihy dh tks fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk eatwj dh xbZ vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½] ¼[k½] ¼x½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dh fMØh çnku dh xbZ FkhA ¼iSjk 4½
D;k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½ ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj çfroknh }kjk HkkM+k fuf{kIr fd, tkus vkSj rn~}kjk mls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼3½ dk Qk;nk vuqKkr gksus ds ckotwn fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu fMØh çnku fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk\
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % HkkM+s ds cdk;k ds lank; ds ckjs esa vihykFkhZx.k }kjk nqjkxzgiwoZd fujarj O;frØe dkfjr fd, x, FksA bruk gh ugha] fcuk fdlh fof/kekU; dkj.k ds vihykFkhZx.k ijorhZ ekl dh 15 rkjh[k rd ekfld HkkM+s ds lank;@fu{ksi esa foQy jgs ftl ij fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk Bhd gh /;ku fn;k x;k gS] rc Hkh /kkjk 13¼1½ ds f}rh; vax ds vuqikyu ds laca/k esa bu lc lqLi"V vkSj fujarj O;frØeksa dh mis{kk djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ ds v/khu dksbZ vk/kkj fl) ugha gqvk gSA bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; esa] fupys vihy U;k;ky; us bl ckjs esa lgh vfHkxe viuk;k vkSj ;g mfpr gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd vihykFkhZx.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼3½ ds v/khu Qk;ns ds gdnkj ugha FksA 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk- 14 fu-1&oknh }kjk vfHkopkfur rF;ksa dk çfroknh }kjk fyf[kr dFku esa çR;k[;ku ugha fd;k x;k&fook|d fojfpr fd, tkus dh vko‘;drk ughaA
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ rFkk 12¼1½ ¼x½& &HkkM+ki= esa djkj fd, x, ds vU; dkjckj çkjaHk ugha fd, tkus dk fofufnZ"V fuca/ku varfoZ"V& &vfHk/kkjh ds iq= }kjk vU; dkjckj vuqKk ds fcuk çkjafHk fd;k x;k& &vk/kkj fl)A
D;k fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ ds v/khu fMØh çnku dh tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk tc fd LohÑr :i ls og vk/kkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha fy;k x;k Fkk\
D;k fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk i{k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu oknh ds i{k esa fMØh çnku dh tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk\
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % HkkM+ki= esa] oknh&Hkw&Lokeh dh iwoZ vuqKk fcuk HkkM+ki= esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ dkjckj pykus ds çfr‘ks/k dk fofufnZ"V fuca/ku fd;k x;k FkkA bl çdkj fufoZokn rF;ksa ds ifjçs{; esa] fupys vihy U;k;ky; us Bhd gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ ,oa ¼x½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ds vk/kkj Hkh fl) gq, FksA fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk Bhd gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd fdlh fofufnZ"V çR;k[;ku ds vHkko esa] fo‘ks"kr% vihykFkhZ Ø-1 }kjk vius vfHklk{; esa dh xbZ LohÑfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr djrs gq, /kkjk 12¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu vk/kkj ds laca/k esa dksbZ fook|d fojfpr fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha FkkA fo}ku fupys vihy U;k;ky; us lk{; ds mfpr ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij csn[kyh dh fMØh Bhd gh ikfjr dh gS vkSj bl çdkj fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkdfFkr fu"d"kZ bl f}rh; vihy esa vk{ksiuh; gSA ¼iSjk 11½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk- 41 fu-22& &çR;kifr& &nksuksa fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk Hkw&Lokeh dh okLrfod vko‘;drk dk vfHkokd [kkfjt& &,sls vk/kkj ij çR;kifr xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 6½
1. This appeal at the instance of defendants-tenants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2001 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Neemuch, in First Appeal No. 22-A/2001. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-landlord was allowed and dismissal of the suit as ordered by the trial Court was set aside and a decree for eviction under S. 12(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was granted.
2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for eviction against appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') on the allegation that he is the owner and landlord of the Shop No. 6 situated on Mhow Nasirabad Road, Neemuch (hereinafter referred to as 'suit shop' for short). It was let out to defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- (Rs. Eight hundred) for commercial purposes for running office and sale of machinery parts. Although tenancy commenced from 1.9.1988, but a Rent Note was executed on 1.10.1988. Under the rent note a sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand only) was deposited by the defendants-tenants as security deposit for payment of rent. According to the plaintiff, defendants were irregular in payment of monthly rent. They had not paid rent for 58 months from September, 1989 to June, 1994 and defendants were in arrears amounting to Rs.46,400/-. Even after adjusting security deposit and other sum which were paid by the tenants, still Rs. 14,400/- was outstanding as arrear up to June, 1994. The tenancy was determined by the plaintiff by registered notice dated 25.11.1991. Even after determination of tenancy, defendants neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit in the year 1994 claiming eviction together with arrears of rent. Plaintiff had also set up bona fide need of his major son Harjeet Singh, who holds a BE degree and is working as a Civil Contractor, for running office in the suit shop. It was also alleged that in 1991 defendants put locks in the suit shop and did not use suit premises for more than six month. Thus, initially eviction was sought under S. 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (f) of the Act, however, during the trial plaintiff amended the plaint and also sought eviction under S. 12(1) (c) of the Act on the plea that contrary to the terms and conditions of the Rent Note, defendants allowed to set up an STD booth in the suit shop. The plaintiff also pleaded that his major son bad obtained a premises on monthly rent of Rs. 650/- (Rupees six hundred fifty) and had opened his office in the said premises w.e.f. 15.8.1998.
3. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement denying that the defendants are in arrears of rent. They also denied the bona fide need of plaintiff's son. They also denied that they were not using the suit accommodation since 1991. Defendants also denied the fact that plaintiff's son had taken premises on monthly rent of Rs. 650/-. With these pleadings, parties went on trial.
4. After appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, as adduced by the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit on each count. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff preferred the first appeal, which was allowed by the lower appellate Court and a decree of eviction was granted under S. 12(1) (a), (b), (c) of the Act as mentioned hereinabove.
5. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether lower appellate Court was justified in granting a decree u/s 12(1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act notwithstanding the deposit of rent by defendant in accordance with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act, thereby allowing him to take benefit of section 12(3) of Act?
2. Whether lower appellate Court was justified in granting a decree U/S 12(1) (b) of the Act when admittedly that ground was not taken before the trial
