Back
2002 Supreme(MP) 230
2002 (2) JLJ 121
S.K. Kulshrestha and K.K. Lahoti, JJ.
Sudhir Tiwari (Dr.) v. Smt. Bhagwanti Devi Issrani
L.P.A. No. 52 of 2002; against the judgment and decree of Single Bench passed in First Appeal No. 735 of 2000; Decided on 21.2.2002.
J.P. Sanghi for appellant
Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -landlord‘s husband‘s passage closed by placing material -- also harassed by usual teasing and taunting -- ground of nuisance made out.
This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by defendant-tenant aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 735/2000 dated 3.1.2002. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff under section 12(1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but has refused decree to the plaintiff under section 12(1)(c), (k) & (m) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act‘). The learned Single Judge has confirmed the decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act and has also granted decree to the plaintiffd`respondent under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. [Para 1
Held : The defendant has stored medicines, empty bottles, pieces of plaster of paris and other material in the staircase and has blocked the passage. Tenant has also closed permanently the staircase which was available from the verandah and in other passage of staircase, he has made the above said obstructions. The plaintiff‘s husband has been harassed by the defendant, his staff usually teasing and taunting and he was kept waiting unnecessarily for certain period every time. The plaintiff‘s husband‘s statement has been found supported by PW 3 Ashok Lalwani and in this regard, the learned Single Judge has also considered the defendant‘s evidence and statement of Gajendra Garewal (DW 14). After considering the entire evidence, learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the above said act constitutes nuisance within the meaning of section 12(1)(c) of the Act. On this ground, the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiffd`respondent under section 12(1)(c) of the Act and we affirm this finding. Para 71
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 92 -- assertion against written agreement -- not acceptable.
The contention of the appellant that he is entitled for set off of Rs. 2,00,000/- is not acceptable in view of provisions of section 92 of the Evidence Act as the present contention of the defendant is contrary to the written agreement which specifically provides the adjustment of Rs. 15,000/- only and it is held that the defandant is not entitled for set off of Rs. 2,00,000/- from plaintiff. [Para 11
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) --old age does not come in way of business of tailoring and dress designing -- bona .fide need has to be judged objectively by the Courts.
The point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding in respect of bona fide necessity under section 12(1)(f) of the Act is perverse and the learned Single Judge and the trial Court have erred in decreeing the suit as the plaintiff is an old lady. She cannot run the business and after retirement of her husband from such high post, she cannot start such a small business like classes of tailoring and dress designing.
We have considered this aspect. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire evidence has arrived at a finding that the husband of the plaintiff is getting a meagre pension of Rs. 657/- only and the plaintiff wants to start her business of tailoring and dress designing and running classes. The old age will not come in the way of plaintiff to start a business. The bona fide need of the plaintiff has to be judged objectively by the Courts. [Para 13
(4) Practice -- case of senior citizen -- has to be given priority. The age of the respondent was 61 years at the time the suit was filed. She is senior citizen as per directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and also of this Court, the matter relating to senior citizens has to be given priority. A woman of 66 years has legitimate expectation from the Court that her matter will be heard and decided by the Court on the basis‘ of the priority so she may get justice within reasonable time and this expectation is in accordance with the directives issued by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly heard and decided the matter of the respondent, which cannot be said to be hasty. [Para 16
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ && Hkw&Lokeh ds ifr dk iFk lkexzh j[k dj can fd;k x;k && izkf;d NsM+NkM rFkk rkusckth }kjk Hkh rax fd;k x;k && U;wlsUl dk vk/kkj fl)A
;g ysVlZ isVsaV vihy izfroknh&vfHk/kkjh }kjk izFke vihy Ø- 735@2000 esa ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 3-1-2002 ls O;fFkr gks dj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izR;FkhZ&oknh dk okn e/; izns‘k LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu fMØh fd;k x;k ijarq e/; izns‘k LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½] ¼V½ rFkk ¼M½ ds v/khu oknh dks fMØh nsus ls bUdkj fd;k x;kA fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu fMØh dh iqf"V dh gS rFkk oknh&izRFkhZ dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu fMØh Hkh iznÙk dh gSA ¿ iSjk 1À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izfroknh us lhf<+;ksa ij nokb;k¡] [kkyh cksrysa] IykLVj vkQ isfjl ds VqdMsa+ rFkk vU; lkexzh HkaMfjkr dj iFk vo#) dj fn;k gSA vfHk/kkjh us cjkens ls miyC/k gksus okyh lhf<+;k¡ Hkh LFkk;h :i ls can dj nh gSA rFkk lhf<+;ksa ds vU; iFk esa mlus mi;qZDr ck/kk,¡ Mky j[kh gSA oknh ds ifr dks izfroknh }kjk rax fd;k x;k gS] izfroknh ds deZpkfjo`an }kjk izk;% NsM+k x;k gS] rkus dls x, gS rFkk mls izR;sd ckj dqN le; vuko‘;d izrh{kkjr j[kk x;k gSA oknh ds ifr dk dFku v lk 3 v‘kksad ykyckuh }kjk lefFkZr ik;k x;k gS rFkk bl ckjs esa fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us izfroknh ds lk{; vkSj xtsanz xjsoky ¼c lk 14½ ds dFku ij Hkh fopkj fd;k gSA laiw.kZ lk{; ij fopkj djus ds i‘Pkkr~ fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ps gS fd mi;qZDr dk;Z ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds vFkkZarxZr U;wlsUl ij igq¡ps gSa fd mi;qZDr dk;Z ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds vFkkZarxZar U;wlsUl xfBr gksrk gSA bl vk/kkj ij fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us oknh&izRFkhZ dk okn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu fMØh fd;k rFkk ge bl fu"d"kZ dh vfHkiqf"V djrs gaSA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 92 && fyf[kr djkj ds fo#) izk[;ku && Lohdk;Z ughaA
vihykFkhZ dk ;g ladFku fd og #- 2]00]000@& ds eqtjk dk gdnkj gS] lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 92 ds mica/kksa dh –f"V ls Lohdk;Z ugha gS D;ksafd izfroknh dk izLrqr ladFku fyf[kr djkj ds foijhr gS ftlesa dsoy #- 15]000@& dk lek;kstu fofufnZ"Vr% micaf/kr gS rFkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh] oknh ls #- 2]00]000@& ds eqtjk dj gdnkj ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ && o`)koLFkk flykbZ rFkk oL= vfHkdYiu ds dkjckj ds vkMs+ ugha vkrh && U;k;ky;ksa }kjk okLrfod vko‘;drk dk fu.kZ;u oLrqfu"Brk ls fd;k tkrk gksrk gSA
vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk mBk;k x;k fcanq ;g gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn fMØh djus esa xyrh gqbZ gS D;ksafd oknh o`) efgyk gSA og dkjckj ugha pyk ldrh rFkk ,sls mPp in ls mlds ifr dh lsokfuo`fÙk ds i‘pkr~ og flykbZ vkSj oL= vfHkdYiu dh d{kk,¡ ysus tSlk NksVk dkjckj vkjaHk ugha dj ldrhA geus bl igyw ij fopkj fd;k gSA laiw.kZ Lkk{; in fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ps gS fd oknh ds ifr dks #- 657@& ek= dh vYi isU‘ku izkIr gks jgh gS rFkk oknh flykbZ vkSj oL= vfHkdYiu dk rFkk d{kk,¡ ysus dk viuk dkjckj vkjaHk djuk pkgrh gSA o`)koLFkk dkjckj vkjaHk djus esa oknh ds vkMs+ ugha vk,xhA oknh dh okLrfod vko‘;drk dk fu.kZ;u U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oLrqfu"Brk ls fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA
¿ iSjk 13À
¼4½ izFkk && T;s"B ukxfjd dk ekeyk && izkFkfedrk nh tkuk gksxhA
okn Qkby fd, tkus ds le; izR;FkhZ dh vk;q 61 o"kZ FkhA og T;s"B ukxfjd gS( ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rFkk bl U;k;ky; ds Hkh] funs‘kksa ds vuqlkj T;s"B ukxfjdksa ls lacaf/kr ekeys dks izkFkfedrk nh tkuk gkssxhA 66 o"khZ; L=h dh U;k;ky; ls fof/klEer izR;k‘kk gksrh gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk mldk ekeyk izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij lquk vkSj fofuf‘pr fd;k tk,xk rkfd mls ;qfDr;qDr le; ds Hkhrj U;k; izkIr gks rFkk og izR;k‘kk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh funs‘kksa ds vuqlkj gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us izR;FkhZ dk ekeyk Bhd&gh lquk vkSj fofuf‘pr fd;k gS] bls ljljh ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 16À
Lahoti, J. -- This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by defendant-tenant aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 735/2000 dated 3.1.2002. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff under section 12(1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but has refused decree to the plaintiff under section 12(1)(c), (k) & (m) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge has confirmed the decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act and has also granted decree to the plaintiff-respondent under section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant is tenant of the plaintiff on the ground floor of houses No. 1243 and 1244. Wright Town, Jabalpur at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 1.10.1992 (Ex. P/1). The premises were taken for non-residential purposes to run a clinic and the defendant was permitted to carry out repairs to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for which an amount of Rs. 3,000/was paid to him in cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,000/- was to be adjusted in rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The defendant was required to keep the accommodation in "good and tenantable repairs" and handover the same to the plaintiff in the same condition in which it was at the time of letting, the period of tenancy was eleven months, which was renewable at the option of the defendant for a further period of eleven months and thereafter for seven months more but not later than 31 3.1995. The defendant was specifically not• allowed to make any additions or alterations without the written consent of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's husband was practising as an Advocate and both were living in this accommodation before it was let out. At the time of letting out the suit accommodation on 1.10.1992, the plaintiff's husband Justice K.L. Issrani was a Judge of this Court and he was living in a Government bungalow and after sometime he was transferred to Orissa High Court. He retired from that High Court on 19.3.1995. Presently, plaintiff and her husband are residing in a rented house at Jabalpur. The plaintiff or her husband has no other house at Jabalpur. It is not in dispute that one room on the first floor of the disputed accommodation is in possession of the plaintiff in which her husband is doing' 'chamber practice". The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that previously she was also running classes in tailoring and dress designing in the suit accommodation and her husband was practising as an Advocate and was having his office therein. She stopped doing so after her husband was appointed as a Judge of this Court. After the retirement of her husband, she bona fide requires the suit accommodation for running the classes in tailoring and dress designing. She does not have any other accommodation for this purpose at Jabalpur. Her husband would start legal practice on the first floor of this house. Her husband wants to start his legal practice but the defendant has closed the passage and has put the waste material of the hospital with the result that the husband of the plaintiff is not able to go to the first floor and use the above said room for his legal work and is also unable to use library which is existing in that room. The plaintiff's husband is required to go through the compendia's room which has an opening leading to the staircase and for that he is required to take the permission of the defendant or his staff and suffer their annoyance. Many a times, plaintiff's husband has to face mis-behaviour of the defendant and his staff and this amounts to nuisance. The allegations are also made regarding substantial damage to the suit accommodation and tenant having made material additions and alterations, but on this ground the learned trial Court has refused the decree which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The defend
