Back
2002 (2) JLJ 69
(SUPREME COURT)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
R.C. Tamrakar and another v. Nidi Lekha
Civil Appeal No. 2784 of 1997; arising out of judgment of M.P. High Court passed in second appeal No. 291 of 1993;
Decided on 16.10.2001.
The sole respondent-landlady filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears rent and damages against the appellant-tenant. The grounds for ejectment were bona fide requirement for accommodation, non-payment of rent from 3.5.1985 to 31.7.1986 and also for renovation and alteration of the suit premises as it was in a dilapidated condition. The tenant denied the title of the landlady and that he was in the arrears of rent. The tenant also denied that the suit premises was required for bona fide accommodation of the respondent and for renovation and alteration. The suit was decreed by the additional Civil Judge, Chhindawara, but the decree was set aside by the first appellate Court. The second appeal was carried to the High Court and by the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the trial Court. [Para 2
Held : Reading both the sub-sections (1) and (5) of S. 13 together we are of the opinion that the benefit of sub-section (5) shall be available to a tenant provided he tenders the arrears of rent or deposit it in the Court within one month of service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or any other proceeding, or within one month of the institution of the appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it allow in this behalf. In the case in hand the tenant did not deposit the arrears rent either prior to filing of the suit or during its pendency before the trial Court. In the first appellate Court rent was deposited and it was not clear whether he continued to deposit the rent as per sub-section (1) of section 13. The first appellate Court set aside the findings of defaulter on the ground that the rent was deposited in the appellate Court. The High Court was of opinion that after the trial Court passed the decree holding that the tenant was in the arrears of rent, mere depositing the amount without filing an application for extension of time for payment of all the arrears of rent due, the finding of the appellate Court that tenant was not a defaulter is not sustainable. The High Court further recorded that the first appellate Court did not give any finding that entire amount of arrears of rent was paid. This finding of the High Court cannot be faulted in view of clear provision of sub-section (1) of section 13 and, therefore, tenant is not entitled to get protection under sub-section (5). [Para 8
(2) Landlord and Tenant -- tenant admitting letting out accommodation to him by the plaintiff -- relationship also admitted in evidence -- relationship proved. [Para 4
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(e) -- tenant vacated suit premises on his transfer -- having his own accommodation there -- landlord cannot be non-suited for extraneous consideration -- decision of landlord in judging residential requirement cannot be questioned.
Though the tenant left the suit premises on his transfer to a place called Sivani where he has been provided accommodation by his employer, where he is living with his wife and he has also a house at Sivani, the first appellate Court erroneously took into consideration that the suit premises is required for accommodation of his ailing grandmother and his son, who is doing business in the suit premises. Therese are absolutely extraneous consideration as while considering the bona fide need of the landlord under the Act, the Court need not take into consideration these facts.
Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself. [Paras 9 & 10
(4) Practice -- passing unsavory remarks against lower judiciary by the High Court -- practice is deprecatable.
Time and again this Court had deprecated the prectice of passing unsavory remarks against subordinate judicial officers by High Courts but unfortunately the direction of this Court has not perculated down to High Courts. (1963) 3 SCR 722, (1994) supp (1) SCC 540, 1997(4) SCC 65 and 2001 (3) SCC 54 relied on.
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½] 13¼1½] 13¼2½ rFkk 13¼5½ && /kkjk 13¼5½ dk Qk;nk && dsoy rc miyC/k tc /kkjk 13¼1½ vFkok /kkjk 13¼2½ ds vuqlkj HkkM+k fuf{kIr fd;k x;k gks && vkosnu Qkby fcuk le; ugha c<+k;k tk ldrkA
,dek= izR;FkhZ&Hkw&Lokfeuh us csn[kyh rFkk cdk;k] HkkM+k vkSj uqdlkuh dh olwyh ds fy, vihykFkhZ&vfHk/kkjh ds fo#) okn Qkby fd;kA csn[kyh ds fy, vk/kkj Fks LFkkuk dh okLrfod vko‘;drk] 3-5-1985 ls 31-7-1986 rd HkkM+s dks vlank; rFkk oknxzLr ifjlj dk uohdj.k vkSj ifjorZu Hkh D;ksafd og th.kZ&‘kh.kZ voLFkk gksA vfHk/kkjh us Hkw&Lokfeuh dks gd dk rFkk HkkM+k cdk;k gksus dk izR;k[;ku fd;kA vfHk/kkjh us ;g izR;k[;ku Hkh fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh okLrfod vko‘;drk rFkk uohdj.k vkSj ifjorZu ds fy, oknxzLr ifjlj dh vko‘;drk FkhA vij flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k] fNanokM+k }kjk okn fMØh fd;k x;k ijarq izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk fMØh vikLr dh xbZA mPp U;k;ky; esa f}rh; vihy dh xbZ rFkk vkf{kIr fu.kZ; }kjk mPp U;k;ky; us vihy eatwj dj yh rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; izR;kofrZr dj fn;kA ¿ iSjk 2À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ rFkk ¼5½] nksuksa dk ,d&lkFk ikB djus ij gekjh jk; gS fd vfHk/kkjh ¼5½ dk Qk;nk miyC/k gksxk ;fn og HkkM+s dk cdk;k leu ys[k ¼fjV vkQ leUl½ dh vFkok vihy dh ;k fdlh vU; dk;Zokgh dh lwpuk dh rkehy gksus ds ,d ekl ds Hkrh ;k ,sls vfrfjDr le; ds Hkrhj tSlk fd U;k;ky;] mldksa vkosnu fd;k tkus ij] bl laca/k esa vuqKkr djsa] lanÙk djrk gS vFkok U;k;ky; esa fuf{kIr djrk gSA izLrqr ekeys eas] vfHk/kkjh us HkkMs+ dk cdk;k u okn Qkby fd, tkus ls iwoZ fuf{kIr fd;k] u fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k mlds yacu ds nkSjkuA izFke vihy U;k;ky; esa HkkM+k fuf{kIr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g Li"V ugha Fkk fd og /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlkj HkkM+k lanÙk fd;k x;k FkkA mPp U;k;ky; dh jk; Fkh fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk og vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj fMØh ikfjr fd, tkus ij fd vfHk/kkjh dh vksj ls HkkM+k cdk;k Fkk] ‘kks/; HkkMs+s ds leLr cdk;k ds lanÙk ds fy, le; c<+kus ds fy, vkosnu Qkby fd, fcuk jde fuf{kIr djus Hkj ls vihy U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ fd vfHk/kkjh O;fÙkØeh ugha Fkk] iq"V djus ;ksX; ugha gSA mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vkSj vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k fd izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk x;k fd HkkM+s dh laiw.kZ jkf‘k lanÙk dh xbZ FkhA mPp U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds –f"V ls =qfViw.kZ ugha dgk tk ldrk vkSj blfy,] vfHk/kkjh mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds v/khu laj{k.k dk gdnkj ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼2½ Hkw&Lokeh rFkk vfHk/kkjh && oknh }kjk vfHk/kkjh dks LFkku HkkMs+ ij fn;k tkuk vfHk/kkjh us Lohdkj fd;k && lk{; esa Hkh laca/k Loh—r && laca/k lkfcrA
¿ iSjk 8À
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼M-½ && vfHk/kkjh us vius LFkkukarj.k in oknxzLr ifjlj fjDr fd;k && ogk¡ ij mldk Lo;a dk LFkku && vlac) ckr ij fopkj dj Hkw&Lokeh dks oknoftZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vkoklh; vko‘;drk fu.khZr djus esa Hkw&Lokeh dk fofu‘p; iz‘uxr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
;|fi vfHk/kkjh us flouh uked LFkku ij viuk LFkkukarj.k gks tkus ij oknxzLr ifjlj NksM+ fn;k] tgk¡ mls mld fu;kstd }kjk LFkku fn;k x;k gS ftlesa og viuh iRuh ds LkkFk jg jgk gS rFkk flouh eas mldk edku Hkh gS] izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk bl ckr ij xyr fopkj fd;k x;k fd mldh chekj firkegh ds vkokl ds fy, rFkk oknxzLr ifjlj esa dkjckj djus okys mlds iq= ds fy, oknxzLr ifjlj dh vko‘;drk gSA ;g iw.kZr% vlac) ckrssa gS D;ksafd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh dh okLrfod vko‘;drk ij fopkj djrs le; U;k;ky; }kjk bu rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gSA
;g fof/k lqLFkkfir gS fd Hkw&Lokeh dks fofuf‘pr djuk gksrk gS fd mls dSls vkSj fdl jhfr ls jguk pkfg, RkFkk viuh vkoklh; vko‘;drk dk og Js"Bre fu.kkZ;d gSA okLrfod vko‘;drk ds iz‘u dk fofu‘p;u djrs le; ij iz;kl djuk vko‘;d gS fd Hkw&Lokeh vkSj fdl izdkj ls Lo;a dh O;oLFkk dj ldrk FkkA
¿ iSjk 9 ,oa 10À
¼4½ izFkk && fupyh U;k;ikfydk ds fo#) mPp U;k;ky; }kjk v:fpdj fVIi.kh izFkk vuqfpr gSA
bl U;k;ky; }kjk v/khuLFk U;kf;d vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo#) v:fpdj fVIif.k;k¡ djus dh mPp U;k;ky;ksa dh izFkk ckj&ckj vuqfpr BgjkbZ xbZ gS fdarq ijarq nqHkkZX;o‘k] bl U;k;ky; dk funs‘k mPp U;k;ky;ksa rd laizsf"kr ugha gqvk gSA 1963 ¼3½ ,l lh vkj 722] 1994 lIyh- 1 ,l lh lh 540] ¼1997½ 4 ,l lh lh 65 rFkk ¼2001½ 3 ,l lh lh 54 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14 ls 17À
Phukan, J. -- 1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 30th January, 1997 passed in second appeal No. 291 of 1993. The appeal is by the tenant.
2. Facts of the case are as follows :
The sole respondent-landlady filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears rent and damages against the appellant-tenant. The grounds for ejectment were bona fide requirement for accommodation, non-payment of rent from 3.5.1985 to 31.7.1986 and also for renovation and alteration of the suit premises as it was in a dilapidated condition.
The tenant denied the title of the landlady and that he was in the arrears of rent. The tenant also denied that the suit premises was required for bona fide accommodation of the respondent and for renovation and alteration. The suit was decreed by the additional Civil Judge, Chhindawara, but the decree was set aside by the first appellate Court. The second appeal was carried to the High Court and by the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the trial Court. That is how the parties are before us.
3. We have heard Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant and Mr. K.M.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady.
4. From the judgment of the trial Court, we find that the tenant admitted in his evidence the fact of taking the suit premises on rent and also accepted the respondent as his landlord. On these facts the trial Court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court and the High Court.
5. Regarding default in payment of rent it was averred that the tenant was in arrears of rent from May 3,1985 to 31st of July, 1986 amounting to Rs. 1493/- and the rent was Rs. 100/- per month. The trial Court from the evidence of the tenant and his son held that, as they could not say who paid the rent and for how many months, the tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1493/-. The first appellate Court on the ground that the tenant deposited rent in the appellate Court, held that he could not be treated defaulter of rent.
6. Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), if a tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months from date on which notice of demand for arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord, eviction can be ordered. Admittedly, the tenant did not pay the arrears rent after receipt of the notice.
7. Sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 13 of the Act which are relevant for our purpose and are quoted below:
"13(1) On a suit or any other proceeding being instituted by a landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12 or in any appeal or any other proceeding by a tenant against any decree or order for his eviction, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceeding, or within one month of institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant, as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month.
Previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceedings as the case may be.
13(5). If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required to sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of
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
