Back
2003 (2) JLJ 14
(SUPREME COURT)
D.P. Mohapatra and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
Ramesh Chand and others v. Rajkumar
Civil Appeal No. 508 of 2002; against order of M.P. High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 814 of 1997; Decided on 15.1.2002.
Bhogi Ram and Nemi Chand were two brothers and jointly‘ owned the four storeyed building of which the suit premises (two shop rooms) on the ground floor formed a part. By a registered document executed on 30th June, 1988, Bhogi Ram relinquished his interest in the building in favour of his brother Nemi Chand. Nemi Chand by a registered document executed on 25th February, 1989 (Exhibit P-4), settled the suit property (ground floor of the building) in favour of his son Raj Kumar who is the respondent herein. Raj Kumar is undisputedly an insane person. Thereafter, Raj Kumar represented by his father and guardian Nemi Chand, filed a petition under section 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 seeking the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that it is required for starting a business for sale of utensils for benefit to the owner.
The appellants refuted the plea of bona fide personal requirement of Raj Kumar and also questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by him alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also questioned the validity of the arrangement/settlement made by Nemi Chand in favour of and for the benefit of his disabled son, Raj Kumar by the registered document dated 25th February, 1989.
The Rent Controlling Authority in its order, considered two questions viz., maintainability of the eviction petition filed by Raj Kumar and acceptability of the plea of bona fide requirement, and held against the applicant on both the counts. [Paras 3 to 5
In civil revision filed by the landlord under section 23-E of the Act, the High Court, on a fairly detailed discussion of the pleadings, the‘ contentions raised on behalf of the parties and the legal position, came to hold that neither the petition could be dismissed on the ground of maintainability nor could it be held on the facts and circumstances of the case that the landlord had no‘ bona fide need for the premises in question. [Para 8
Held: The arrangement made by father, who is undisputedly the owner of the property, in favour of his mentally retarded son for the benefit of the latter cannot be said to be an arrangement not permissible in law. In our view, prima facie the arrangement incorporated in the document can be viewed as a settlement of the property by Nemi Chand in favour of Raj Kumar. We make it clear here that we have not considered the question of title to the property nor do we intend to hold that Raj-Kumar has perfect title to the property by virtue of the arrangement. Suffice it to say that for the purpose of the proceeding under the Rent Control Act, Raj Kumar has become the landlord as defined in section 23-J which defines, inter alia, landlord, as a physically handicapped person. In any view of the matter, it is not open to the tenant to question the necessity for the arrangement/settlement or the legality of the title vested in the landlord. [Para 16
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-D(3) -procedure to be followed by Rent Controlling Authority is provided under n he has to raise statutory presumption of bonafide requirement in favour of landlord. [Para 13
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 23-E -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- revisional power of High Court under S. 23-E of the Act -- is wider than power under S. 115 of the Code -- revisional proceedings under the Act cannot be equated with appellate power.
It is clear that the revisional power vested in the High Court is wider than the power vested under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it has to be kept in mind that the revisional proceeding under section 23-E cannot be equated with appeal and the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the matter. [Para 14
(4) Hindu Law -- family arrangement/settlement n not signed by all members of family u not for settlement of any existing or apprehended family dispute n not a family arrangement/settlement in strict sense. [Para 16
(5) Hindu Law -- settlement of property in favour of son by father -- is permissible even it is not a family settlement or family arrangement, [Para 16
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-A(b) -eviction sought by handicapped landlord -- alternative accommodation of his father cannot be considered to non-suit the landlord. [Para 16
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 23&´&firk }kjk vius vlqfo/kkxzLr iq= ds i{k esa laifÙk dk O;oLFkkiu&iq= Hkw&Lokeh gks tkrk gS&vfHk/kkjh ,slk O;oLFkkiu ç‘uxr ugha dj ldrkA
Hkksxhjke rFkk usehpan nks HkkbZ Fks rFkk og ml pkj&eaftyh bekjr ds la;qDr Lokeh Fks ftldk Hkkx mlds Hkw&ry ij fLFkr oknxzLr ifjlj ¼nks nqdkusa½ gSaA 30 twu 1988 dks fu"ikfnr jftLVªhÑr nLrkost }kjk Hkksxhjke us bl bekjr esa viuk fgr vius HkkbZ usehpan ds i{k esa R;kx fn;kA usehpan us 25 Qjojh 1989 dks fu"ikfnr jftLVªhÑr nLrkost ¼çn‘kZ ih&4½ }kjk okn laifÙk ¼Hkou dk fupyk ry½ vius iq= jktdqekj] tks fd ;gk¡ çR;FkhZ gS] ds i{k esa O;oLFkkfir dj nhA jktdqekj fufoZokn :i ls mUer O;fDr gSA rRi‘pkr~] jktdqekj us] vius firk rFkk laj{kd usehpan ds çfrfuf/kRo esa e/; çns‘k LFkku fu;a=e vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 23&d ds v/khu vihykFkhZ dh csn[kyh bl vk/kkj ij bZfIlr djrs gq, vthZ Qkby dh fd og Lokeh ds Qk;ns ds fy, crZuksa ds foØ; dk dkjckj çkjaHk djus ds fy, visf{kr gSA
vihykfFkZ;ksa }kjk jktdqekj dh okLrfod futh vko‘;drk dk [kaMu fd;k x;k rFkk ;g vfHkdfFkr djrs gq, fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; Hkw&Lokeh rFkk vfHk/kkjh dk dksbZ laca/k ugha Fkk mlds }kjk Qkby dh xbZ ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; u gksus dk ç‘u Hkh mBk;k x;kA mlus usehpan }kjk jftLVªhÑr nLrkost fnukad 25 Qjojh 1989 }kjk vius fu%‘kDr iq= jktdqekj ds i{k esa fd, x, le>kSrk@O;oLFkk dh fof/kekU;rk ij Hkh ç‘u mBk;kA
HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh }kjk] vius vkns‘k esa] nks ç‘uksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k] uker%] jktdqekj }kjk Qkby dh xbZ vthZ pyus ;ksX; gksus rFkk okLrfod vko‘;drk ds vfHkokd~ dh Lohdk;Zrk] vkSj nksuksa gh ç‘uksa ij vkosnd ds fo#) vfHkfu/kkZj.k fd;kA ¼iSjk 3 ,oa 5½
Hkw&Lokeh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&M ds v/khu Qkby fd, x, flfoy iqujh{k.k esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkopu] nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds i{k esa fd, x, ladFku rFkk fof/kd fLFkfr ij mfpr :i ls foLr`r ppkZ djus ds i‘pkr~ ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd u rks vthZ pyus ;ksX; ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh tk ldrh Fkh] u ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij ls ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr gh fd;k tk ldrk Fkk fd Hkw&Lokeh dks ç‘uxr ifjlj dh okLrfod vko‘;drk ugha FkhA ¼iSjk 8½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % firk }kjk] tks fd laifÙk dk fufoZokn :i ls Lokeh gS] ekufld :i ls ean vius iq= dh lqfo/kk ds mlds i{k esa fd;k x;k le>kSrk fof/k esa vuuqKs; ugha dgk tk ldrkA gekjh n`f"V esa] nLrkost esa varfoZ"V çca/k çFken`"V;k jktdqekj ds i{k esa usehpan }kjk laifÙk ds O;oLFkkiu ds :i esa ns[kk tk ldrk gSA ge ;gk¡ ;g Li"V dj nsa fd geus laifÙk ds gd ij fopkj ugha fd;k gS] u gekjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus dk vk‘k; gh gS fd bl çca/k ds çHkko ls jktdqekj dks laifÙk dk iw.kZ gd gSA ;g dguk i;kZIr gS fd HkkM+k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh dk;Zokgh ds ç;kstu ds fy,] jktdqekj /kkjk 23&´ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr Hkw&Lokeh cu x;k gS] ftlesa vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk ‘kkjhfjd :i ls fu%‘kDr O;fDr Hkw&Lokeh ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA ekeys ds fdlh Hkh n`f"Vdks.k ls le>kSrk@O;oLFkk dh vko‘;drk vFkok Hkw&Lokeh esa fufgr gd dh oS|rk ij ç‘u djus dk vfHk/kkjh dks vf/kdkj ugha gSA ¼iSjk 16½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 23&?k ¼3½&HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh }kjk viukbZ tkus okyh çfØ;k blesa micaf/kr gS&mls Hkw&Lokeh ds i{k esa okLrfod vko‘;drk dh mi/kkj.kk djuk gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 13½
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 23&´&flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 115&vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&´ ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; dh iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr&lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu ‘kfDr ls vf/kd O;kid gS&vf/kfu;e ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dk;Zokgh dh vihyh ‘kfDr ls rqyuk ugha dh tk ldrhA
;g Li"V gS fd mPp U;k;ky; esa fufgr iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu fufgr ‘kfDr ls vf/kd O;kid gSA rFkkfi] ;g /;ku j[kus ;ksX; gS fd /kkjk 23&´ ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dk;Zokgh dh rqyuk vihy ls ugha dh tk ldrh rFkk mPp U;k;ky; ekeys esa vihy çkf/kdkjh ds :i esa dk;Z ugha dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 14½
¼4½ fganw fof/k&dkSVqafcd le>kSrk O;oLFkk&dqVqac ds lHkh lnL;ksa }kjk gLrk{kfjr ugha&fdlh Hkh fo|eku vFkok vk‘kafdr dkSVqafcd fookn ds fuiVkjs ds fy, ugha&vfrfuefu"B :i esa dkSVqafcd le>kSrk O;oLFkk ugha gSA ¼iSjk 16½
¼5½ fganw fof/k&firk }kjk iq= ds i{k esa laifÙk dh O;oLFkk&og dkSVqafcd le>kSrk vFkok dkSVqafcd O;oLFkk ugha gksrs gq, Hkh vuqKs; gSA ¼iSjk 16½
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 23&d¼[k½&vlqfo/kkxzLr Hkw&Lokeh }kjk csn[kyh bZfIlr&mlds firk dk vkuqdfYid LFkku Hkw&Lokeh dks okn oapu ds fy, fopkj esa ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 16½
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal filed by the tenant Govind Das Bansal, (legal representative of the original tenant) the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No. 814 of 1997 is under challenge. In the said judgment, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority dismissing the application filed by the present respondent and evicting the tenant from the premises in question. The premises in question are non-residential in character. An order for eviction of the tenant was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord with other consequential directions.
3. Brief facts necessary to appreciate the questions raised, may be stated thus :
Bhogi Ram and Nemi Chand were two brothers and jointly owned the four storeyed building of which the suit premises (two shop rooms) on the ground floor formed a part. By a registered document executed on 30th June, 1988 Bhogi Ram relinquished his interest in the building in favour of his brother Nemi Chand. Nemi Chand by a registered document executed on 25th February, 1989 (exhibit P-4) settled the suit property (ground floor of the building) in favour of his son Raj Kumar who is the respondent herein. Raj Kumar is undisputedly an insane person. Thereafter, Raj Kumar represented by his father and guardian Nemi Chand, filed a petition under section 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 seeking the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that it is required for starting a business for sale of utensils for benefit to the owner.
4. The appellants refuted the plea of bona fide personal requirement of Raj Kumar and also questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by him alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also questioned the validity of the arrangement/settlement made by Nemi Chand in favour of and for the benefit of his disabled son, Raj Kumar by the registered document dated 25th February, 1989.
5. The Rent Controlling Authority in its order, considered two questions viz., maintainability of the eviction petition filed by Raj Kumar and acceptability of the plea of bona fide requirement, and held against the applicant on both the counts. It is evident from the discussions in paragraph 9 of the order that while considering the point whether the applicant has actually. a bona fide need for the suit shop for carrying on business for sale of utensils, the authority recorded the finding that there appears to be no justification for doing any business in utensils on behalf of the applicant.
6. In paragraph 10 of the order, the conclusion is summed up as follows :
"Even if this is presumed that applicant being in the category of section 23-J is eligible to carryon his application lawfully under section 23-A(b), even then the applicant being not the landlord of suit shop and his guardian having available other alternative establishments and houses and object of applicant's father being mala fide, bona fide need for applicant being not proved".
7. The Rent Controlling Authority further observed that Nemi Chand, father of Raj Kumar, had other alternative accommodation available for the purpose of opening new business.
8. In civil revision filed by the landlord under section 23-E of the Act, the High Court, on a fairly detailed discussion of the pleadings, the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and the legal position, 'came to hold that neither the petition could be dismissed on the ground of maintainability nor could it be held on the facts and circumstances of the case that the landlord had no bona fide need for the premises in question. The High Court summed up the position in paragraph 20 of the judgment in these words:
''Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration especially the fact that the applicant to have separate business for his subsistence, in the opinion of this Court,
SupremeToday
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
