Back
2007(1) JLJ 134
A.K. Saxena, J.
Pandharinath v. Rukminibai and others
Second Appeals No.393 and 394 of 1991 (Jabalpur): against the
judgment and decree passed by I Additional Judge to the
Court of District Judge, Khandwa, in Civil Appeals
No. 59-A and 60-A of 1983; Decided on 30.11.2005.
Whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties? Para 6
Held: The account book pages EX.P-3 and P-4 are sufficient to believe that the defendant Chotelal was tenant in the disputed premises and this account book is believable evidence. In these circumstances the defendant could not claim adverse possession. Therefore, the findings of the First Appellate Court with regard to no ownership of the plaintiff and no relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant are erroneous whereas, the findings of the trial Court in this respect are correct and according to oral and documentary evidence. Para 9
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.2(b) -- ‘landlord‘ -- several persons come under this definition -- not necessary that eviction suit should be filed by owner -- anybody coming under definition of landlord may file eviction suit -- person collecting rent and issuing receipt is landlord. 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 704 followed. [Para 8
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12 -- eviction suit -- Court has to see whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists or not -- declaration of ownership is futile because suit is not filed for declaration of title -- question of litle may be considered incidentally if disputed. [Para 7
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.8 R.1 -- defendant denying his signatures on the written statement -- it is sufficient to disbelieve his whole statement. [Para 9
(5) Court Fees Act, 1870 -- S.7 (xi) -- M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S.12 (1) (o) -- suit for eviction -- plaintiff need not pay court fee separately on each and every ground. 1983 JLJ 302 relied on. [Para 13
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ && csn[kyh dk okn && Hkw&Lokeh rFkk vfHk/kkjh ds laca/k es fu"d"kZ && Hkw&Lokeh dk LokfeRo && nLrkosth rFkk ekSf[kd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk xzg.k fd;k x;k && vihy U;k;ky; ds vU;Fkk fu"d"kZ && xyr gSA D;k ekeys ds rF; ifjfLFkfr;ksa }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ U;k;ksfpr gS fd i{kdkjksa ds chp Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk dksbZ laca/k ugha gS \ ¿ iSjk 6 À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ys[kk cgh ds i`"B izn‘kZ ih&3 rFkk ih&4 ;g fo‘okl djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSa fd izfroknh NksVsyky fooknxzLr ifjlj esa vfHk/kkjh Fkk rFkk ;g ys[kk cgh fo‘oluh; lk{; gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] izfroknh izfrdwy dCts dk nkok ugha dj ldrk FkkA vr% oknh ds LokfeRo u gksus ds rFkk i{kdkjksa dk Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk laca/k ugha gksus ds laca/k esa izFke vihy U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ xyr gSa tcfd] bl laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ lgh gSa rFkk ekSf[kd rFkk nLrkosth lk{; ds vuqlkj gSA ¿ iSjk 9 À ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼[k½ && *Hkw&Lokeh* && bl ifjHkk"kk ds v/khu fofHkUu O;fDr vkrs gSa && vko‘;d ugha csn[kyh dk okn Lokeh }kjk Qkby fd;k tk, && bl ifjHkk"kk ds v/khu vkus okyk dksbZ Hkh O;fDr csn[kyh dk okn yk ldrk gS && HkkM+k ysus okys rFkk jlhn nsus okyk O;fDr Hkw&Lokeh gSA 1994 lIyh- ¼2½ ,l lh lh 704 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8 À ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 && csn[kyh dk okn && U;k;ky; dks ns[kuk gksrk gS fd Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dk laca/k gS vFkok ugha && LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kk O;FkZ gS D;kassfd okn gd dh ?kks"k.kk ds fy, Qkby ugha fd;k x;k gS && gd ds iz‘u ij vuq"kafxd :i ls fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn fookfnr gksA ¿ iSjk 7 À ¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 8 fu-1 && izfroknh }kjk fyf[kr dFku ij vius gLrk{kj dk izR;k[;ku && og mlds laiw.kZ dFku ij vfo‘okl djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA ¿ iSjk 9 À ¼5½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 7 (ix) && e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 12¼1½¼.k½ && csn[kyh ds fy, okn && oknh }kjk izR;sd vk/kkj ij i`Fkd U;k;ky;&Qhl lanÙk dh tkuk vko‘;d ugha gSA 1983 ts ,y ts 302 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13 À
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of Disrict Judge, Khandwa, in Civil Appeals No. 59N 83 and 60N83.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1991 passed by the Court of First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Khandwa in Civil Appeal No. 59-N83 and Civil Appeal No.60-N83 arising out of the judgment passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Khandwa on 8.9.1983 in Civil Suit No. 27-N77, the appellant-plaintiff preferred these two appeals.
3. The appellant-plaintiff filed the civil suit for eviction of Chotu @ Chotelal, who was husband/father of respondents, from the suit property on these grounds that the appellant is owner and landlord of the disputed house and the defendant was his tenant at Rs. 7/- per month. The defendant Chotelal failed to pay the rent since 1st April, 1974 despite notice. The house is in dilapidated condition and the defendant has materially altered the accommodation by making construction without written sanction of the plaintiff. The house is not fit for human habitation. The defendant also denied the ownership of the plaintiff. Apart from that, the defendant took the illegal possession of adjacent land, during the pendency of the suit which is not included in the accommodation let to him. Therefore, the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant from the disputed house and for possession of the adjacent land.
4. After taking evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit on the grounds enumerated under section 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") but on remaining grounds it was dismissed.
5. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, both the parties filed counter appeals but, the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.3.1991 passed in Appeals No. 59-N83 and 60-N83, dismissed the whole suit and reversed the decree passed by the trial Court under section 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (c) of the Act. Against this judgment and decree, the appellant-plaintiff filed these second appeals because the first appellate Court passed the common judgment in two appeals.
6. The Second Appeal No. 393/91 was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the facts and circumstances appearing from evidence on record justify the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?"
Another Second Appeal No. 394/91 was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties?"
7. Both the substantial questions of law are of similar nature. The appellant-plaintiff pleaded in the trial Court that he is the owner and landlord of the disputed property whereas the defendant is tenant but the fact of ownership and tenancy was denied by the defendant. The trial Court reached at the conclusion that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of documentary and oral evidence, whereas the first appellate Court found that the plaintiffs were not the owner of disputed property and the defendant was not the tenant of that house. On perusal of paragraphs 13 to 25 of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court, I found that the finding of the first appellate Court with regard to ownership is totally erroneous because the learned Judge of first appellate Court failed to notice that there is a lot of difference between the words 'landlord' and 'owner'. The first appellate Court discussed the fact of ownership at length, as if this suit was filed for declaration of title. This was totally wrong approach where eviction of the tenant was sought from the disputed premises. Where a suit is filed under the Act, it is for the Court to see whether the
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
