SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(MP) 1035

2007(1) JLJ 213
A.M. Naik, J.
Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal v. Firm M/s. Dinanath Gyasilal
Second Appeal No.71 of 2003 (Gwalior); Decided on 14.10.2005.

Advocates:
N.K. Jain and K.N. Gupta with Arvind Dwivedi for appellant;
R.D. Jain with M.B. Mangal for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.4, R.27 -- application for adducing additional evidence -- non-disposal of -- prejudice has to be established by the party concerned -- if there is no prejudice -- non-disposal is immaterial.

       Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are sustainable in view of the fact that the applications filed by appellants along with documents under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code and section 151, Civil Procedure Code were not decided either before or at the time of filing of the appeal? [Para 5

       Held: A person aggrieved by the non-disposal of a pending appeal by the lower appellate Court is obliged to show that such non-disposal did cause prejudice to him. Unless such prejudice is established, mere non-disposal of an application by the lower appellate Court will not afford a ground for making remand, although, it is not clear from the record whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 was infact pressed or not. The lower appellate Court has also not chosen to make a mention that the said application was not pressed at all. So, I feel it proper to consider whether the act of lower appellate Court of not disposing of the application under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code has caused prejudice to the appellant and what is the degree of such prejudice .... Non-consideration of application under• Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code did not cause my prejudice to the appellant". (1999)6 SCC 44 followed. . [Para 9

       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12(1)(a) -- demand notice not served by landlord or on his behalf -- decree of eviction under cannot be passed. [Para 10

       (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12(1)(c) -- suit for eviction -- tenant disclaimed title of landlord -- also disputed his status as tenant -- liable to be evicted even if belatedly he has withdrawn the denial and his status -- unamended pleadings may be considered for the purpose.

       Whether the decree could be passed on the ground of disclaimer and is sustainable and whether the findings with regard to defendants having denied the title of Vinod Kumar is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? [Para 5

       Held: Once the tenant has incurred the liability for ejectment under clause (c) of section 12(1) of the Act merely because he choses to withdraw the denial belatedly, the cause of action accrued• to the landlord-plaintiffs would not be wiped out in the absence of there being a specific provision to that effect in the Act. [Para 26

       It may be seen that this Court has categorically found that the ownership of Vi nod Kumar was expressly denied in paragraph 3 of the original written statement and the character as tenant was denounced expressly in paragraph 12 of the written statement. This Court having further found in the light of the aforesaid legal position that the denials existing before the amendment can very well be taken into consideration for grant of eviction under section l2(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the learned lower appellate Court is not found to have committed any mistake. 1999 JLJ 343 and AIR 1976 All. 399 distinguished. 1983 MPWN 46, 1979(1) MPWN 93 and 1994 MPLJ 619 relied on. 2002(2) JLJ 312 (SC) followed. [Para 27

       (4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.114 -- plaintiff landlord -- owner pleading authorisation for collecting rent, etc. in favour of another person -- not entering in witness-box -- adverse inference is liable to be drawn. AIR 1991 SC 1441 followed. [Para 10

       (5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.2(b) -- landlord -- realization of rent and entitlement to rent -- have different connotations -- rent lastly paid in 1974 -- suit instituted in 1984 -- alleged landlord cannot be said to have received rent in 1984. AIR 1992 SC 1454 distinguished. [Para 13

       (6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12(1)(9) -landlord seeking eviction decree -- must institute suit within effective period of demand notice -- cannot legally seek eviction on the basis of notice issued more than five years back. [Para 17

       (7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961- (M.P.) -- Ss.13(1) and 13(2) -- eviction suir -- tenant is, not obliged to deposit time barred rent. 1978 JLJ 6 (FB) relied on. (2004)4 SCC 95 distinguished. 2002(1) MPWN 146 and 1994 JLJ 143 dissented from. [Para 19

       (8) Appeal-- memorandum of -- raising a point in absence of affidavit of arguing counsel, it does not mean that such point was argued in the lower Court. [Para 8

       (9) Judgment -- statement in -- has to be prima facie accepted as correct. AIR 1972 SC 2091 followed. [Bara 8

       (10) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 -- S.17(2) -- entry of death not registered in the record of District Registrar -- "non-availability certificate" is of no avail. [Para 9

       ¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk-4 fu-27& &vfrfjDr lk{; çLrqr fd, tkus ds vkosnu& &fuiVkjk ugha gksuk& &lacaf/kr i{kdkj }kjk çfrdwy çHkko fl) fd;k tkuk gksrk gS& &;fn çfrdwy çHkko ugha gqvk gS& &fuiVkjk ugha gksuk egRoghu gSA

       D;k fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; vkSj fMØh bl rF; dh n`f"V ls ekU; fd, tkus ;ksX; gS fd vihykfFkZ;ksa }kjk flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 27 rFkk flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu nLrkostksa ds lkFk Qkby fd, x, vkosnuksa dk u rks iwoZ esa gh vkSj u vihy Qkby fd, tkrs le; gh fofu‘p; fd;k x;k\ ¼iSjk 5½

       fupys U;k;ky; }kjk yafcr vihy dk fuiVkjk ugha fd, tkus ls O;fFkr O;fDr ;g nf‘kZr djus ds fy, ck/; gS fd fuiVkjk ugha gksus ls og çfrdwyr% çHkkfor gqvk gSA tc rd ,slk çfrdwy çHkko LFkkfir ugha fd;k tkrk gS] fupys U;k;ky; }kjk fuiVkjk fd;k tkuk ek= çfrçs"k.k dk vk/kkj ugha cu ldsxk] ;|fi vfHkys[k ls ;g Li"V ugha gS fd flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 27 ds v/khu vkosnu ij okLro esa cy fn;k x;k Fkk ;k ughaA fupys U;k;ky; us Hkh ;g mYys[k djuk ilan ugha fd;k fd mDr vkosnu ij cy fn;k gh ugha x;k FkkA blfy,] eSa bl ij fopkj djuk mfpr le>rk gwa fd flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 27 ds v/khu vkosnu dk fuiVkjk ugha djus ds fupys vihy U;k;ky; ds dk;Z ls vihykFkhZ çfrdwyr% çHkkfor gqvk gS vkSj ,sls çfrdwy çHkko dh ek=k D;k gSA---flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 27 ds v/khu vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd, tkus ls vihykFkhZ ij dksbZ çfrdwy çHkko dkfjr ugha gqvk gSA ¼1999½6 ,l lh lh 44 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9½

       ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 12¼1½¼d½& &Hkw&Lokeh vFkok mldh vksj ls ek¡x dh lwpuk dh rkehy ugha& &csn[kyh dh fMØh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 10½

       ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 12¼1½¼x½& &csn[kyh dk okn& &vfHk/kkjh }kjk Hkw&Lokeh ds gd dk badkj& &viuh vfHk/kkjh dh çkfLFkfr ij Hkh fookn fd;k& &csn[kyh dk nk;h gS] Hkys gh ckn dks mlus badkj vkSj viuh çkfLFkfr çR;kgr dj yh gks& &bl ç;kstu ds fy, vla‘kksf/kr vfHkopuksa ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA

       D;k badkj ds vk/kkj ij fMØh ikfjr dh tk ldrh Fkh rFkk ekU; fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj D;k ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çfroknhx.k }kjk fouksn dqekj ds gd dk çR;k[;ku fd, tkus ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ U;k;ksfpr gSa\ ¼iSjk 5½

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc dHkh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼2½ ds v/khu vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh dk nkf;Ro çksnHkwr gks tkrk gS] ek= bl dkj.k fd ckn esa og badkj dk çR;kgj.k djrk gS] vf/kfu;e esa ml vk‘k; dks fofufnZ"V mica/k ds vHkko esa Hkw&Lokeh oknhx.k ds çksnHkwr okngsrqd lekIr ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 26½

       ;g /;ku fn;k tkuk gksxk fd bl U;k;ky; us lqLi"Vr% ik;k gS fd fouksn dqekj ds LokfeRo ls ewy fyf[kr dFku ds ih&13 esa vfHkO;Dr :i ls badkj fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj vfHk/kkjh ds Lo:i dk çR;k[;ku fyf[kr dFku ds iSjk 2 esa vfHkO;Dr :i ls fd;k x;k FkkA iwoksZDr fof/k fLFkr ds çdk‘k esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkus ls fd e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu csn[kyh eatwj djus ds fy, la‘kks/ku ds iwoZ fo|eku çR;k[;kuksa ij Hkyh Hkk¡fr fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS] fo}ku fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ xyrh dkfjr dh tkuk ugha ikbZ xbZ gSA 1991 ts ,y ts 343 rFkk , vkb vkj 1976 bykgkckn 399 çHksfnrA 1983 e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 46] 1979¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksVl 93 rFkk 1994 ,e ih ,y ts 619 voyafcrA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 312 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27½

       ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872& &/kkjk 114& &oknh Hkw&Lokeh& &Lokeh }kjk HkkM+k olwy djus ds fy, vU; O;fDr dks çkf/kÑr fd, tkus dk vfHkopu& &lk{kh dB?kjs esa ugha vk;k& &çfrdwy vuqeku fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 1441 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10½

       ¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 2¼[k½& &Hkw&Lokeh& &HkkM+k olwyh vkSj HkkM+s dh gdnkjh& &fHkUu&fHkUu vFkZ gSa& &HkkM+k vafrer% 1974 esa lanÙk& &okn 1984 esa lafLFkr& &vfHkdfFkr Hkw&Lokeh }kjk 1984 esa çkIr fd;k tkuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1454 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 13½

       ¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 12¼1½¼d½& &Hkw&Lokeh }kjk csn[kyh dh fMØh dh bZIlk& &ek¡x lwpuk dh çHkkoh vof/k ds Hkhrj okn lafLFkr fd;k tkuk gksxk& &ik¡p o"kZ ls vf/kd iwoZ tkjh dh xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij oS/k :i ls csn[kyh dh bZIlk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 17½

       ¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 13¼1½ rFkk 13¼2½& &csn[kyh okn& &vfHk/kkjh le;&oftZr HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus ds fy, ck/; ugha gSA 1978 ts ,y ts 6 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼2004½4 ,l lh lh 95 çHksfnrA 2002¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksVl 146 rFkk 1994 ts ,y ts 143 folEerA ¼iSjk 19½

       ¼8½ vihy& &Kkiu& &dksbZ fcanq mBk;k tkuk& &cgl djus okys dkmUlsy ds ‘kiFki+= ds vHkko esa ;g ugha ekuk tk,xk fd ,sls fcanq ij fupys U;k;ky; esa cgl dh xbZ FkhA ¼iSjk 8½

       ¼9½ fu.kZ;& &esa dFku& &çFken`"V;k lgh dh Hkk¡fr Lohdkj fd;k tkuk gksxkA , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 2091 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½

       ¼10½ tUe vkSj e`R; jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969& &/kkjk 17¼2½& &e`R;q dh çfof"V ftyk jftLVªkj ds vfHkys[k esa jftLVªhÑr ugha& &çek.ki= dh vuqiyC/krk dk dksbZ mi;ksx ughaA ¼iSjk 9½

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by defendant-tenants against a decree for eviction granted under section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation-Control Act, 1961.

2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from M/s. Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal, a partnership firm with the averments that the suit shop is owned by Smt. Saraswatibai (plaintiff No.2) which is occupied by the defendant as a tenant @ Rs.180/- per month under an oral tenancy w.e.f. 1.2.1974. The plaintiff No.2 is not well educated so she authorised plaintiff No.1 for looking after her property and realization of rent. The defendant was inducted into the suit shop by the plaintiff No.1 in the aforesaid capacity. It is stated in the plaint that accordingly, the plaintiff No.1 is also a landlord of the defendant and has been impleaded as a plaintiff in order to avoid legal complications. The property devolved upon plaintiff No.2 due to death of Vinod Kumar. The plaintiff No.2 became an exclusive owner of the suit shop on account of being mother of Vinod Kumar who died during his bachelorhood on 8.8.1973. It was further stated in the plaint that the rent was due from 1.2.1974. However, keeping in view the limitation. the plaintiff claimed the rent for a period of preceding three years and two months amounting to Rs.6,660/-. The defendant paid Rs.1,800/- towards rent on 29.6.1974 and did not pay the balance amount in respect of demand notice dated 11.11.1978. The defendant has• kept the suit premises locked and closed from time quite prior to March, 1978 and a decree on ground under sectionoI2(1)(d) was claimed; Since the same has been denied and no substantial question of law is framed on this point, I do not feel it apt to further discuss' with respect to the aforesaid averments. It is further contended that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs and has caused substantial damage to the interest of the plaintiffs, so, eviction has also been sought on this ground.

3. The original defendant submitted its written statement and stated that the suit shop was obtained by it on rent from Vinod Kumar. It is denied that the defendant was inducted into the suit shop by the plaintiff No.1. Thus, the landlordship of the plaintiff No.1 has been refuted in the written statement. In the written statement it was initially stated that Vinod Kumar was not owner of the disputed shop. However, by way of amendment it was admitted that Vinod Kumar was owner of the disputed shop. It is further contended in the written statement that the defendant is not aware that whether the plaintiff No.2 was the exclusive heir of Vinod Kumar and became the sole owner of the suit shop after the death of Vinod Kumar. The occurrence of death of Vinod Kumar on 8.8.1973 has been denied. It is further stated that while receiving the suit shop, the defendant deposited Rs. 40,000/- as advance with Vinod Kumar and has obtained a receipt thereof. The rent was fixed, at Rs.90/- per month. It is further stated that the brothers of Vinod Kumar were also his heirs and the plaintiffs have no right to institute the present suit. It is further stated by way of amendment that the defendant has obtained the suit shop from Vinod Kumar on rent. The defendant became aware of the mistake in the written statement and by way of amendment he acknowledged Vinod Kumar as owner. It has been specifically contended that the defendant does not dispute the title of Vinod Kumar. The defendant denied that he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.2.1974. The notice of demand has been challenged on the ground that the notice was not issued on behalf of proper person. It was contended that the notice was issued by firm M/s. Dinanath Gyasilal which was not competent to issue such a notice. By amendment it was further stated that the firm M/s. Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal ceased to be a partnership firm and Puranlal has been in possession of the suit shop as a tenant.




















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top