Back
1997 (2) JLJ 127
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. (M/s.) v. Manohar and others
First Appeal No. 245 of 1995; against the judgment and decree passed by 15th Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 30-A of 1996; Decided on 14.11.1996.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- amendment allowed on ground of subsequent event -- case has to be remanded for fresh trial -- such amendment highly belated and not necessary -- should be refused to shorten span of litigation. 1985 MPRCJ 251 relied on. [Para 11]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b) -- unlawful parting with possession by tenant without written consent of landlord pleaded and proved -- payment of rent by sub-tenant does not make any difference -decree rightly granted. 1977 JLJ 434, AIR 1975SC 2156,1972 JLJ 532, AIR 1954 SC 758, AIR 1987 SC 1242 and 1972 JLJ 121 referred to. [Paras 16 & 17]
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-- Ss. 12 (1) (b) and 14 -sub-letting, assignment and parting with possession by tenant without written consent of the landlord -- all the three acts are unlawful -- tenant parting with possession is liable to be evicted. 1975 JLJ 57 relied on. [Para 18]
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b) -- sub-letting -- can hardly be proved by direct evidence u parting with possession by tenant established -- burden shifts on the sub-tenant to prove that his possession is not unlawful -- payment of rent or deposit in Court does, not amount to creation of tenancy. 1972 JLJ 532 and 1977 JLJ 434 relied on. AIR 1954 SC 758 followed. [Para 19[
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 2 (i) -- ‘tenant‘ as defined -- person claiming to be tenant should also be included. AIR 1990 SC 808 followed. . [Para 20]
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b) -- tenant sub-letting, assigning or otherwise parting with possession -- looses protection of section 12 -- such sub-letting etc. either should exist on the date of suit or decree -- single act is sufficient. AIR 1975 SC 2156 followed. [Para 22]
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) -- bona fide requirement -- to be proved by landlord -- Court should decide it objectively -bona fide or genuine means sincere and not false, fictitious etc. 1965 JLJ 973 (SC) followed. 1960 JLJ 473 and 1991 MPLJ 426 relied on. . [Para 26]
(9) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (e) --landlord pleading bonafide need according to challenged circumstances -- proving the same -- need cannot be said to be false fictitious etc. [Para 28]
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 17¼2½ && HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh ds le{k vkosnu djus dk mipkj miyC/k && csn[kyh ds ckn ds vihyh izØe ij fdlh la‘kks/ku dh vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrhA 1996 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 102 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10À ¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 17 && i‘pkr~orhZ ?kVuk ds vk/kkj ij la‘kks/ku vuqKkr && ekeyk u, fljs ls fopkj.k ds fy, izfriszf"kr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && ,slk la‘kks/ku vR;ar foyafcr rFkk vuko‘;d && eqdÌesackth ds le; dsk de djus ds fy, ukeatwj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 11À ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼[k½ && vfHk/kkjh }kjk Hkw&Lokeh dh fyf[kr lgefr ds fcuk dCtk fof/kfo#) NksMk tukk vfHkopfur rFkk lkfcr &&& mi&vfHk/kkjh }kjk HkkM+s ds lank; ls dksbZ varj ugha iM+rk && fMØh Bhd eatwj dh xbZA 1977 ts ,y ts 434] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2156] 1972 ts ,y ts 532] , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 758 vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1242 rFkk 1972 ts ,y ts 121 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 16 ,oa 17À ¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼[k½ rFkk 14 && vfHk/kkjh }kjk Hkw&Lokeh dh fyf[kr lgefr ds fcuk mi&vfHk/k`fr ij fn;k tkuk] lkSaik tkuk rFkk dCtk NksM+k tkuk &&rhuksa dk;Z fof/kfo#) gS && dCtk NksM+us okyk vfHk/kkjh csn[ky fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 1975 ts ,y ts 57 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 18À ¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼[k½ &mi&vfHk/k`fr && izR;{k lk{; }kjk lkfcr fd;k tkuk valHkkO; gh gS && vfHk/kkjh }kjk dCtk NksM+k LFkkfir && ;g lkfcr djus dk Hkkj mi&vfHk/kkjh ij vk tkrk gS fd mldk dCtk fof/kfo#) ugha gS && HkkM+s dk lank; vFkok U;k;ky; esa fu{ksi vfHk/k`fr ds l`tu dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA 1972 ts ,y ts 532 rFkk 1977 ts ,y ts 434 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 758 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 19À ¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼>½ && ;FkkifjHkkf"kr *vfHk/kkjh* && vfHk/kkjh gksus dk nkok djus okys O;fDr dks Hkh lfEefyr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 808 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 20À ¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼[k½ && vfHk/kkjh }kjk mi&vfHk/k`fr ij fn;k tkuk] lkSaik tkuk ;k vU;Fkk dCtk NksM+k tkuk && og /kkjk 12 dk laj{k.k [kks nsrk gS && ,slh mi&vfHk/k`fr vkfn okn vFkok fMØh dh rkjh[k ij vfLrRo esa gksuk pkfg, && ,d dk;Z gh i;kZIr gSA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2156 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 22À ¼8½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ && okLrfod vko‘;drk && Hkw&Lokeh }kjk lkfcr dh tkuk gksrh gS && U;k;ky; }kjk mldk fofu‘p; oLrqfu"B% fd;k tkuk pkfg, && okLrfod vFkok vlyh dk vFkZ gS fu"diV rFkk feF;k] cukoVh vkfn ughaA 1965 ts ,y ts 973 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 1960 ts ,y ts 473 rFkk 1991 ,e ih ,y ts 426 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 26À ¼9½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼³½ && Hkw&Lokeh }kjk ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr vuqlkj okLrfod vko‘;drk vfHkopfur && og lkfcr Hkh && vko‘;drk dks feF;k] cukoVh vkfn ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 28À
1. The defendant/appellant has directed this appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1995, rendered by XV Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit-No. 30-A/96, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.2 plaintiff, for ejectment from the suit-accommodation under section 12 (1) (b) and 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against appellant and respondent. No. 2/defendant.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. That respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit against appellant and respondent No.2 for arrears of rent and eviction from the house situated-at 88, Chandralok Colony, Indore under different provisions of section 12 of the Act, but at the trial, the suit was contested only under section 12 (1) (b) and 12 (1) (e) of the Act, on the allegation that the appellant, after taking the suit-accommodation on rent from respondent No.1/plaintiff on 1.11.78 as per lease-deed, Exh. P/9, on 11.10.78, unlawfully without written permission of the land-lord parted with the possession of the suit-accommodation and was given to respondent No.2 (defendant No.2), thereby committing breach of contract of the agreement. The suit was also contested on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit-accommodation for the residence of the plaintiff himself and his family members, as the plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city of Indore, under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. The Court declined to give its decision on issue Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The Court recorded the findings on Issue Nos. 4, 5, 10 and 11 only and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction from the suit-accommodation, of the appellant and respondent No. 2, under section 12 (1 ) (b) and 12 (1) (e) of the Act.
3. The suit was resisted by the appellant and respondent No.2 (Defendants), by filing a joint written statement. In the written statement, it is alleged that tenancy agreement was initially executed between the plaintiff and appellant (defendant No. 1). As per the agreement, the tenancy was to commence from 1.11.1978 and it was for the period of six months expiring on 1.5.1979. The said agreement, was however, not acted upon after 1.12.78. On 23.10.1978, respondent No.1/plaintiff, entered into an agreement to. sell the suit-accommodation to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 paid Rs. 25,000/by way of advance against the price, as agreed between the parties. It is stated in the written statement that from 1.12.78, defendant No.2 had occupied the suit-accommodation and during commencement of the agreement, he continued in possession of the accommodation, as tenant of the plaintiff. From 1.12.1978, the defendant No.2 was paying rent and the same being accepted by the plaintiff, thereby creating a fresh tenancy between respondent No. 1/plaintiff and respondent No. 2/defendant No.2). It is alleged that defendant No.2 filed the suit for specific performance of the contract to sell the suit-accommodation, in favour of the defendant No.2 against the plaintiff. The same is still pending in the Court for its disposal. The defendants have denied that the defendant No.1 has unlawfully parted with the possession of the suit-accommodation and handed over its possession to respondent No.2 (defendant No.2). It is also denied that plaintiff bonafide requires the suit-accommodation for his residence and for the residence of his family members. It was, contended that plaintiff wants to sell the suit-accommodation on higher price, as the prices of the properties are grown up and with this intention, filed the suit for eviction on false grounds and allegations. The objections with regard to valuation, jurisdiction and Court fees were also raised in the written statement.
4. The trial Court framed the issues and recorded evidence of the parties. As indicated earlier, the suit was contested only on the grounds of section 12 (1) (b)
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
