Back
2002 (1) JLJ 342
(SUPREME COURTS)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Leela Soni and others v. Rajesh Goyal and others
Civil Appeal No. 6116 of 2001; against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of M.P., Bench at Gwalior, ill Second Appeal No. 18 of 1993; Decided on 3.9.2001.
The landlord filed a suit for eviction on two grounds: (i) default in payment of rent, and (ii) encrochment and construction on land not let out to him. The trial Court gave the benefit of S. 13(5) of the Act to the tenant and passed a decree to vacate the disputed portion and to pay damages.
The landlord appealed that the tenant neither paid/deposited the rent, nor vacated the disputed portion. The learned first appellate Judge held that it was not essential that rent should be deposited during the pendency of the appeal and that in any event, that fact was not proved by the landlord. On the question of handing over of possession of the disputed portion, it was held that the landlord failed to prove that the nature of the construction on the, disputed portion was of permanent nature and caused prejudice to him, the cost of the suit accommodation was reduced or deteriorated as a result of such construction. [Para 5 The High Court modified the judgment of the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the suit accommodation by judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. [Para 6 Held: Section 103 of the CPC authorises the High Court to determine any issue which is necessary for the disposal of the second appeal provided the evidence on record is sufficient, in any of the following two situations: (1) when that issue has not been determined both by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court or by the lower appellate Court; or (2) when both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court or the lower appellate Court has wrongly determined any issue on a substantial question of law which can properly be the subject matter of second appeal under section 100 of CPC. [Para 21 Inasmuch as in the instant case on both the issues relating to clauses (a) and (0) referred to above, on account of its erroneous approach, the first appeal1ate Court did not determine the relevant issues, in our view, the High Court was well within its jurisdiction in recording the aforementioned findings of fact for which the evidence was on record, as section 103 of the CPC empowers the High Court to determine such issues of fact. (1976) 2 SCC 141 and (1978) 3 SCC 215 referred to. [Para 22 ]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(1)(0) and 12( 11) -- failure of tenant to comply with decree/direction of Court to vacate wzautllOrisedly occupied portion and to pay damages -- will entail order of eviction on ground in clause (0). [Para 12]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(m) and (0) -- both clauses contain two distinct and mutually exclusive grounds -- clause (m) speaks of unauthorised construction within let out accommodation -- clause (0) talks of unauthorised occupation of and Construction on portion /lot let out -- consideration of detriment of landlord‘s interest or diminution of value arises only under clause (m), not under (0). [Paras 13 & 14]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 103 rFkk 100 & e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½] 12¼1½ ¼M½] 12¼1½ ¼.k½] 13¼5½ rFkk 13¼6½ && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼6½ ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh ds çdFku v[kafMr rFkk fookfnr gksus dk mPp U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ & HkkM+k vlanÙk & fookfnr ifjlj fjDr djus dk opuca/k iwjk ugha fd;k x;k && fu"d"kZ vfHkys[k ij vk/kkfjr & mPp U;k;ky; dks vfHkys[k ij vk/kkfjr rF; ds ,sls fook|d vo/kkfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA
Hkw&Lokeh us csn[kyh ds fy, okn nks vk/kkjksa ij Qkby fd;k % (i) HkkM+s ds lank; esa O;fDrØe] rFkk (ii) mls HkkM+s ij ugha nh xbZ Hkwfe ij vf/kØe.k rFkk fofuekZ.kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk/kkjh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼5½ dk Qk;nk fn;k x;k rFkk fookfnr Hkkx fjDr djus vkSj uqdlkuh lanÙk djus dh fMØh ikfjr dh xbZA
Hkw&Lokeh us vihy dh fd vfHk/kkjh us u HkkM+k lanÙk@fuf{kIr fd;k u fookfnr Hkkx gh fjDr fd;kA fo}ku çFke vihy U;k;k/kh‘k us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd vfuok;Z ugha Fkk fd HkkM+k] vihy ds yacu ds nkSjku fuf{kIr fd;k tk, rFkk] fdlh Hkh n‘kk esa] Hkw&Lokeh ml rF; dks lkfcr ugha dj ldk FkkA fookfnr Hkkx dk dCtk lkSaius ds ç‘u ij vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd Hkw&Lokeh ;g lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk fd fookfnr Hkkx ij fd, x, fofuekZ.k dk Lo:i LFkk;h Fkk rFkk mlls ml ij çfrdwy çHkko iM+k Fkk] ,sls fofuekZ.k ds ifj.kke Lo:i oknxzLr LFkku dh dher de gks xbZ Fkh vFkok og {k; gks jgk FkkA ¿iSjk 5
mPp U;k;ky; }kjk] fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; rFkk fMØh dh iqf"V djrs gq, çFke vihy U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; mikarfjr fd;k x;k rFkk bl vihy esa vkf{kIr fu.kZ; rFkk fMØh }kjk oknxzLr LFkku ls vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh ds fy, Hkw&Lokeh dk okn fMØh fd;k x;kA ¿iSjk 6
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 103 }kjk mPp U;k;ky; dks] fuEu nks esa ls fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa] ,slk dksbZ Hkh fook|d vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, çkf/kÑr fd;k x;k gS tks f}rh; vihy ds fuiVkjs ds fy, vko‘;d gks] ijarq ;g fd vfHkys[kxr lk{; i;kZIr gks% ¼1½ tc ml fook|d dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds lkFk&lkFk fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh] vFkok fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vo/kkfjr ugha fd;k x;k gks( vFkok ¼2½ tc fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds lkFk&lkFk vihy U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh] vFkok fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k ds ,sls lkjoku~ ç‘u ij fdlh fook|d dk xyr vo/kkj.k fd;k x;k gks tks flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 100 ds v/khu leqfpr :i ls f}rh; vihy dh fo"k;&oLrq gks ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 21
D;ksafd çLrqr ekeys esa Åij fufnZ"V [kaM ¼d½ rFkk ¼.k½ nksuksa ds laca/k esa fook|dksa ij] xyr vfHkxe ds dkj.k] çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk lqlaxr fook|dksa dks vo/kkj.k ugha fd;k x;k] gekjh jk; esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk rF;ksa ds ,sls iwoksZfYyf[kr fu"d"kZ ftlds fy, lk{; vfHkys[kxr Fkk] vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkuk iw.kZr% vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj Fkk D;ksafd flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 103 esa mPp U;k;ky; dks rF; ds ,sls fook|dksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds fy, l‘kDr fd;k x;k gSA ¼1976½ 2 ,l lh lh 141 rFkk ¼1978½ 3 ,l lh lh 215 fufnZ"VA ¿iSjk 22
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼.k½ rFkk 12¼11½ & vçkf/kÑr :i ls vf/kHkksx esa fy;k x;k Hkkx fjDr djus rFkk uqdlkuh lanÙk djus dh U;k;ky; dh fMØh funs‘k ds vuqikyu djus esa vfHk/kkjh dh foQyrk & [kaM ¼.k½ ds vk/kkj ij csn[kyh dk vkns‘k gksxkA ¿iSjk 12
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼M½ rFkk ¼.k½ & nksuksa [kaMksa esa nks lqfHkUu rFkk ,d&nwljs dk viotZu djus okys vk/kkj gSa & [kaM ¼M½ esa HkkM+s ij fn, x, LFkku ds Hkhrj vçkf/kÑr fofuekZ.k dh ckr gS & [kaM ¼.k½ esa HkkM+s ij ugha fn, x, Hkkx ds vçkf/kÑr vf/kHkksx rFkk ml ij fofuekZ.k dh ckr gS & Hkw&Lokeh ds fgr dh gkfu vFkok ewY; dh deh ij fopkj dsoy [kaM ¼M½ ds v/khu fd;k tkrk gS] ¼.k½ ds v/khu ughaA ¿iSjk 13 ,oa 14
Quadri, J. -- 1. Leave is granted.
2. This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior, decreeing the suit of the landlord against the tenant, by allowing the Second Appeal No. 18 of 1993 on May 4,2000.
3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original tenant, late Kanwar Lal Soni (referred to in this judgment as 'the tenant') and the respondents are the successors-in-interest of the landlord, late Madho Lal Basant Lal (hereinafater referred to as 'the landlord'). The tenant obtained premises No. 83 situated at Agra-Mumbai Road, Shivpuri, (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit accommodation') from the landlord on rent of Rs. 30/- p.m. which was later enhanced to Rs. 40/p.m. The landlord filed the suit (Civil Suit No. 63-A/86) in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri, against the tenant for eviction of the suit accommodation on two grounds: (i) default in payment of rent of Rs. 1,080/- and claiming total sum of Rs. 1210/- said to be due, from the tenant under section 12(1)(a) and (ii) encroachment on a portion of land not let out to him and raising construction thereon (referred to as 'the disputed portion') under section 12(1)(0) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The tenant pleaded that the rent due was deposited after the service of notice of the suit and that the alleged unauthorised construction was made with due permission of the landlord.
4. The trial Court gave the benefit of sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act to the tenant on the first ground and passed a decree directing the tenant to vacate the disputed portion and to pay to the landlord damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- p.m. for the said portion within two months from the date of the judgment on the second ground and, thus, decreed the suit on August 24, 1987.
5. Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the landlord filed First Appeal No. 30A of 1992 in the Court of the Second Additional Judge to District Judge, Shivpuri. The landlord contended before the first appellate Court that during the pendency of the appeal, the tenant did not pay/deposit the rent of the suit accommodation and that he did not vacate the disputed portion of the house within the time granted by the trial Court. The learned first appellate Judge held that it was not essential that rent should be deposited during the pendency of the appeal and that in any event, that fact was not proved by the landlord.
On the question of handing over of possession of the disputed portion, it was held that the landlord failed to prove that the nature of the construction on the disputed portion was of permanent nature and caused prejudice to him, the cost of the suit accommodation was reduced or deteriorated as a result of such construction. In that view of the matter, the appeal of the landlord was dismissed on November 16, 1992.
6. Challenging the validity of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the landlord filed second Appeal No. 18 of 1993 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court modified the judgment of the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the suit accommodation by judgment and decree impugned in this appeal.
7. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant contended that the High Court interfered with the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court and that the tenant had paid/deposited all the rent due to the landlord before the first appellate Court as well as the High Court on various dates; the first appellate Court's findings that the disputed construction did not diminish the value of the suit accommodation or caused any prejudice to the landlord, ought not to have been interfered with and decree for eviction of tenant ought not to have been passed by the High Cou
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
