Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 686
2005(3) JLJ 97
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (M/s.) v. Smt. Kamal Vasini Agrawal and another
First Appeal No. 57 of 1996 :
Decided on 12.7.2005.
P.S. Nair with B.P. Gupta for appellant; Satish Agrawal and Kunal
Thackrey for respondent No.1; Devesh Jain for respondent No.2.
Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1) (f) -plot owned by husband of plaintiff-- is not an alternative accommodation because it does not belong to plaintiff -- choice of plaintiff cannot be directed by tenant -- accommodation needed for building hospital for major son -Son being ill service for time being does not end bona fide need.
The defendant No. 1 was a tenant of the premises in question under a lease agreement on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- which expired on 30.6.1986. As per the plaint averments, by deed of lease dated 5.9.1966, the said premises were let out to M/s. Caltex (India) Limited for a period of 10 years commencing from 1.7.1966. Clause 3(g) of the said deed of lease provided for renewal of the lease for a period of 5 years which expired on 30.6.1981. During the extended period of lease, the Act of 1977 came into force w.e.f. 23.4.1977. Under the said Act, all the rights and liabilities of the said company vested in the Union of India and it became a Government company carrying on business under the name and style of the defendant No.1 Corporation. Although no provision exists in the lease, however, by letter dated 13.6.1981 issued by Shri P.K. Roy, the then Regional Manager, Bhopal Region, of defendant No. 1 Corporation, the defendant No. 1 unilaterally extended the lease period by 30.6.1986 taking the aid of sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act of 1977. Thus, the defendant No. 1 Corporation was required to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of lease on 30.6.1986, however, defendant No.1 Corporation has failed to do so. .... According to the plaintiff, she requires the premises for starting a clinic-cum-hospital-cum-consulting chamber for her major son Dr. Alok Agrawal who is a qualified doctor and a Surgeon. [Para 4
Held: The requirement of law under clause (f) of section 12(1) of the Act is that the landlord must be the owner of the reasonably and suitable alternative accommodation. No doubt true, the husband of the plaintiff is the owner of one plot the description of which is given in Ex. P-43, but it is equally true, the same is not owned by the plaintiff and if that is the position, according to me, it cannot be an alternative reasonable suitable accommodation as envisaged under section 12(1) (f) of the Act. .... It is the choice of the plaintiff and her sons to choose where they want to canyon the hospital and the business and the tenant is nobody to direct him to start the business at a particular place. .... There is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since Dr. Alok Agrawal is serving in Nair hospital at Bombay, his need has come to an end. It be seen a person will not sit idle till his case is decided and certainly he is required to do something for his earnings and for that purpose if Dr. Alok Agrawal is serving in some hospital at Bombay, would not mean that his need has come to an end. (2001) 2 SCC 355, (2003) 1 SCC 462 and (2001) 2 SCC 604 followed. 1981 JLJ 716 (SC) distinguished. [Para 24
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)--Ss. 12(1) (c) and S. 12(1) (h) -- ground of eviction proved by plaintiff -- defendant not adducing any evidence in rebuttal -- decree of eviction rightly passed. [Para 27
(3) Caltex [Acquisition of shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited] Act, 1977--S. 7(3)-- extension of period of lease can be availed of only once. (1999) 4 SCC 450 followed. [Paras 32 & 33
(4) Civil P.C., 1908--O. 20 R. 12--mesne profits -- may be claimed from date of unauthorised possession in eviction suit-d`rate may be ascertained according to loss to plaintiff--it may be higher than contractual rate of rent. 2001(II) MPWN 109 relied on. 1988(1) MPWN 26 (SC) and 1999 (II) MPWN 30 (SC) followed. [Para 33
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 12¼1½ ¼p½&oknh ds ifr ds LokfeRo dk Hkw&[kaM&vkuqdfYid LFkku ugha D;ksafd og oknh dk ugha&oknh dh ilan vfHk/kkjh fufnZ"V ugha dj ldrk&LFkku dh vko‘;drk çkIro; iq= ds fy, vLirky fuekZ.k djkus ds fy,&laçfr iq= ds lsok esa gksus ls okLrfod vko‘;drk lekIr ugha gks tkrhA
çfroknh Ø-1 iV~Vk djkj ds v/khu] tks 30-6-1986 volkfur gks x;k] #-250@& ds ekfld HkkM+s ij ç‘uxr ifjlj dk vfHk/kkjh FkkA okni= ds çdFkuksa ds vuqlkj] iV~Vk foys[k fnukad 5-9-1966 }kjk mDr ifjlj esa] dYVsDl ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM dks 1-7-1966 ls vkjaHk] 10 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, HkkM+s ij fn;k x;k FkkA iV~Vk foys[k ds [kaM 3¼N½ esa 5 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, uohdj.k dk mica/k Fkk] ftldk 30-6-1981 dks volku gks x;kA iV~Vs dh c<+kbZ xbZ vof/k ds nkSjku lu~ 1977 dk vf/kfu;e 23-4-1977 ls ço`Ùk gks x;kA mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mDr daiuh ds leLr vf/kdkj vkSj nkf;Ro Hkkjr la?k esa fufgr gks x, rFkk og çfroknh Ø-1 fuxe ds uke ls dkjckj djus okyh ljdkjh daiuh gks xbZA ;|fi iV~Vs esa dksbZ mica/k ugha gS rFkkfi çfroknh Ø-1 fuxe ds Hkksiky {ks= ds rRdkyhu {ks=h; çca/kd Jh ih-ds- jk; }kjk tkjh i= fnukad 13-6-1981 }kjk çfroknh Ø-1 us lu~ 1977 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ dh lgk;rk ls iV~Vs dh vof/k ,di{kh; :i ls 30-6-1986 rd c<+k nhA vr% çfroknh Ø-1 fuxe }kjk 30-6-1986 dks iV~Vs dk volku gksus ij oknxzLr ifjlj fjDr fd;k tkuk visf{kr Fkk rFkkfi çfroknh Ø-1 fuxe ,slk djus esa foQy jgk gSA-----oknh ds vuqlkj] mls vius çkIro; iq= Mk- vkyksd vxzoky ds fy,] tks vgZ fpfdRld vkSj ‘kwY; fpfdRld gS] fDyfud≶&vLirky lg&ijke‘kZ lnu vkjaHk djus ds fy, ifjlj dh vko‘;drk gSA ¼iSjk 4½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ds [kaM ¼p½ ds v/khu fof/k dh vis{kk gS fd Hkw&Lokeh ;qfDr;qDr vkSj mi;qDr vkuqdfYid LFkku dk Lokeh gksuk pkfg,A fu%lansg ij lR; gS fd oknh dk ifr ml Hkw&[kaM dk Lokeh gS tks çn‘kZ ih&43 esa of.kZr gS] ijarq ;g Hkh leku :I ls lR; gS fd ml ij oknh dk LokfeRo ugha gS rFkk ;fn ,slh fLFkfr gS rc esjs vuqlkj og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu ifjdfYir ;qfDr;qDr] mi;qDr vkuqdfYid LFkku ugha gks ldrkA ----;g oknh vkSj mlds iq=ksa dh ilan gS fd ;g vLirky vkSj dkjckj dgk¡ pykuk pkgrs gSa rFkk vfHk/kkjh mUgsa ;g crkus okyk dksbZ ugha gS fd og fdlh fof‘k‘V LFkku ij dkjckj vkjaHk djsA------vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds bl fuosnu esa dksbZ lkj ugha gS fd D;ksafd Mk- vkyksd vxzoky eqacbZ esa uk;j vLirky esa lsokjr gS blfy, mldh vko‘;drk lekIr gks xbZ gSA ;g ns[kus dh ckr gS fd dksbZ Hkh O;fDr viuk ekeyk fofuf‘pr gksus rd csjkstxkj ugha cSBk jgsxk rFkk fuf‘pr :i ls mlds fy, vius miktZukFkZ dqN djuk vko‘;d gS rFkk ml ç;kstu ds fy, ;fn Mk- vkyksd vxzoky eqacbZ esa fdlh vLirky esa lsokjr gS rc mldk vFkZ ;g ugha fd mldh vko‘;drk lekIr gks xbZ gSaA ¼2001½ 2 ,l lh lh 355] ¼2003½ 1 ,l lh lh 462 rFkk ¼2001½ 2 ,l lh lh 604 vuqlfjrA 1981 ts ,y ts 716 ¼mPpre U;k-½ çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 24½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 12¼1½ ¼x½ rFkk 12¼1½ ¼t½& &csn[kyh ds fy, vk/kkj oknh }kjk lkfcr&çfroknh us [kaMu esa dksbZ lk{; is‘k ugha fd;k&csn[kyh dh fMØh Bhd gh ikfjrA ¼iSjk 27½
¼3½ dkYVsDl ¿vk;y fjQkbfuax ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM ds ‘ks;jksa rFkk dkYVsDl ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM ds Hkkjr esa miØeksa dk vtZuÀ vf/kfu;e] 1977& &/kkjk 7¼3½&iV~Vs dh vof/k c<+kbZ tkuk&dsoy ,d ckj ykHk fy;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1994½4 ,l lh lh 450 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 32 ,oa 33½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk- 20 fu-12&var%dkyhu ykHk&csn[kyh okn esa vçkf/kÑr dCts ds fnukad ls nkok fd;k tk ldrk gS& &nj dk vo/kkj.k oknh dks gqbZ gkfu ds vuqlkj fd;k tk ldrk gS&HkkM+s dh lafonkxr nj ls vf/kd gks ldrh gSA 2001¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 109 voyafcrA 1988¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 26 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 1999¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 30 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 33½
1. These two appeals have been preferred by different defendants under section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree passed by trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff Smt. Kamal Vasini Agrawal.
2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that she is the owner and land lady of disputed property. The defendant No.1 M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is a Government company. By, The Caltex [Acquisition of Shares of Caltex oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited] Act, 1977 (for brevity the Act of 1977), the shares of the said company were acquired by the Government of India. Subsequently the rights therein were assigned to defendant No. 1 Corporation.
3. Defendant No.2 M/s. Sikharchand and Company is a dealer of defendant No. 1-Corporation which is in actual occupation of the premises in question.
4. The defendant No. 1 was a tenant of the premises in question under a lease agreement on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- which expired on 30.6.1986. As per the plaint averments, by deed of lease dated 5.9.1966, the said premises were let out to M/s. Caltex (India) Limited for a period of 10 years commencing from 1.7.1966. Clause 3(g) of the said deed of lease provided for renewal of the lease for a period of 5 years which expired on 30.6.1981. During the extended period of lease, the Act of 1977 came into force w.e.f. 23.4.1977. Under the said Act, all the rights and liabilities of the said company vested in the Union of India and it became a Government company carrying on business under the name and style of the defendant No.1 Corporation. Although no provision exists in the lease, however, by letter dated 13.6.1981 issued by Shri P.K. Roy, the then Regional Manager, Bhopal Region, of defendant No.1 Corporation, the defendant No.1 unilaterally extended the lease period by 30.6.1986 taking the aid of sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act of 1977. Thus, the defendant No.1 Corporation was required to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of lease on 30.6.1986, however, defendant No. 1 Corporation has failed to do so on the ground that defendant No.2 M/s. Sikharchand and Company, a dealer of defendant No.1 Corporation is not in a position to vacate the suit premises because substantial investment has been made by him in the trade and he would suffer heavy loss if the retail outlet is closed. Shri S.S. Siddiqui, Senior Regional Manager, Bhopal Region, of defendant No.1 has visited Jabalpur on 2.10.1986 and discussed the matter with the husband of the plaintiff and also agreed that such occupation was against the natural moral norms. According to the plaintiff, she requires the premises for starting a clinic-cum-hospital-cum-consulting chamber for her major son Dr. Alok Agrawal who is a qualified doctor and a Surgeon, having done M.S. in General Surgery from Government Medical College, Jabalpur, in which there shah be facility of x-ray, pathological services and diagnostic facilities etc. According to the plaintiff, the proposed project shall be one of the best in the State of Madhya Pradesh and besides getting gainful employment to the son of the plaintiff, the establishment would render valuable services to the cause of humanity by offering medical facilities to the growing population specially the poor and needy people.
5. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, after having done M.S. (in General Surgery) from Medical College, Jabalpur, plaintiff's son Dr. Alok Agrawal was totally unemployed. Since he was keen to start his own hospital and the possibility of doing so in near future was not possible, he has temporarily taken up a job in Bombay Hospital, Bombay, from 23.9.1987. Thus, he had to do to keep up-to-date knowledge 'of the subject and he shall resign from service as soon as the plaintiff gets the vacant possession of the plot.
6. After getting the vacant possession of the suit premises, both sons of pl
