Back
1997 (2) JLJ 122
R.S. Garg, J.
Kailashchandra and Brothers and others v. Dr. Kamla
Civil Revn. No. 478 of 1995; against the order of Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, passed in eviction case No. A-90/7/98/86-87; Decided on 12.5.1997.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-E -- revision under n powers of High Court are wider than under S. 115, CPC -- however such powers are lesser than appellate powers --finding not perverse -- no interference can be made. 1985 JLJ 793 distinguished. [Para 6]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-A -- eviction case under -- requirement of landlord -- cannot be rationed by the Court. [Para 6]
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.23-J and 23-A -position of landlord as defined under S. 23-J -- to be seen when application for eviction is filed -- position at the time of letting out of premises is immaterial.
The law nowhere says that a woman would be entitled to the benefit under section 23-J read with section 23-A if the premises were let out when she was not a widow and the need arose only after she became a widow. The concession is shown to the persons and the cause of action would accrue in favour of such landlord only when they need the premises. The cause of action for eviction would not accrue on the date when the tenancy was created. According to section 23-J a landlord would mean a widow or a divorced wife. Admittedly the present applicant is a retired Government servant and is a widow also. Section 23-A says that a landlord may submit an application to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the grounds well described under section 23-J. Section 23-A also nowhere provides that the landlady or the Government servant or the landlord defined under section 23-J shall be entitled to maintain an application for eviction before the Rent Control-ling Authority only if the tenancy was created before the man fell within the mischief of definition of landlord as provided under section 23-J[Para 8]
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 14 fu- 2 && csn[kyh dk ekeyk vuSokfld iz;kstu ij vk/kkfjr && fook|d nksuksa iz;kstuksa ds laca/k esa fojfpr && ekeyk vFkok vf/kdkfjrk izHkkfor ugha gksrs tc dsoy vuSokfld iz;kstu ds lk{; ij fopkj fd;k x;k gksA flfoy iqujh{k.k Ø- 512@95 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5À
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&³ && mica/k ds v/khu iqujh{k.k && mPp U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr dh /kkjk 115] flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ls vf/kd gS && rFkkfi ,slh ‘kfDr vihyh; ‘kfDr ls de gS && fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr ugha && gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1985 ts ,y ts 793 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 6À
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&³ && mica/k ds v/khu csn[kyh dk ekeyk && Hkw&Lokeh dh vko‘;drk && U;k;ky; }kjk fu;af=r ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 6À
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&¥ rFkk 23&d && /kkjk 23&¥ ds v/khu ;FkkifjHkkf"kr Hkw&Lokeh dh fLFkfr && csn[kyh dk vkosnu Qkby fd, tk, ds le; ns[kh tkuk pkfg, && ifjlj HkkM+s ij fn, tkus ds le; dh fLFkfr rRoghu gSA
fof/k eas ;g dgha Hkh dfFkr ugha gS fd /kkjk 25&d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 23&¥ ds v/khu Qk;ns dh gdnkj dksbZ L=h rc gksxh ;fn ifjlj HkkMs ij fn, tkus ds le; og fo/kok ugha Fkh rFkk vko‘;drk mlds fo/kok gksus ds i‘pkr~ gh mn~Hkwr gqbZA ;g Qk;nk O;fDr;ksa dks rc gh feysxk rc gh feysxk rFkk ,sls Hkw&Lokeh ds i{k esa okngsrqd rHkh izksnHkwr gksxk tc mUgsa ifjlj dh vko‘;drk gksxhA okngsrqd vfHk/k`fr ds l`tu dh rkjh[k ls iszknHkwr ugha gksxkA /kkjk 23&¥ ds vuqlkj Hkw&Lokeh dk vFkZ gS fo/kok vFkok fofPNé&fookg iRuhA Loh—rr% vkosnd lsok fuo`Ùk ljdkjh lsod gS rFkk fo/kok Hkh gSA /kkjk 23&d ds vuqlkj dksbZ Hkw&Lokeh /kkjk 23&¥ ds v/khu Li"Vr% of.kZr ,d ;k vf/kd vk/kkjksa ij HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh dks vkosnu dj ldrk gSA /kkjk 23&d }kjk dgha Hkh ;g micaf/kr ugha gS fd /kkjk 23&¥ ds v/khu ifjHkkf"kr Hkw&Lokeh vFkok ljdkjh lsod vFkok Hkw&Lokeh HkkM+k fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh ds le{k csn[kyh ds fy, vkosnu ykus ij gdnkj dsoy rHkh gksxk ;fn vfHk/k`fr dk l`tu ml O;fDr ds /kkjk 23&¥ ds v/khu ;Fkkmicaf/kr Hkw&Lokeh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkus ds iwoZ gqvk gksxkA
¿ iSjk 8À
1. By this petition under section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the tenant-applicants challenge the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 4.3.95 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on the application filed by the non-applicant landlady.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the application are that the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises in possession of the tenant were required by her bona fide for carrying on non-residential activity viz., the clinic/consultation services.
3. The defendant was granted leave to defend, taking advantage of the same he filed the written statement. The parties joined the issues, led evidence, the trial Court after hearing the parties, granted the application in favour of the non-applicant. Being dis-satisfied by the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, the tenant has come up in this revision.
4. Shri J.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant contended that prior to filing of the suit and during the pendency of the petition for eviction, the landlady has re-let some of the premises, which came to her possession, at higher rent. He also submits that looking to her requirement the accommodation in her possession is more than sufficient and the tenant can't be evicted from the premises. He also submits that the language in which issue No.1 has been east has caused serious prejudice to the applicant. Lastly relying upon the revisional powers of this Court and pressing into service 1985 JLJ p. 793, it was contended that this Court in a case like present must reappreciate the evidence eto come to a finding that the landlady does not need the premises. He also raised the question that the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction as the premises were let out after the landlady was retired and also became widow. Shri Patni learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the powers of this Court for re-appreciating the evidence can be exercised by this Court only if the appreciation made by the trial Court is patently illegal, perverse or suffers with vice of non-consideration of the evidence available on record. He also submits that the question regarding frame of the issue has already been considered in C.R. No. 512/95 and this Court has held that even if such an issue is framed, it is inconsequential. Shri Patni submits that the accommodation in possession of the land-lady is certainly short and does not meet her requirement, therefore, the Rent Controlling Authority was justified in granting decree.
5. So far as the question of frame of issue is concerned, this Court in C.R. No. 512/95 has held that when the accommodation is let out for composite purpose, the entire accommodation could be got vacated on proof of even one of the needs. In the instant case, though the requirement of the landlord was for the non-residential accommodation, the Rent Controlling Authority framed the question as to whether the landlady is entitled to the accommodation for residential and non-residential requirement. In my opinion, if the Rent Controlling Authority has framed an issue including the need of the residential requirement, it would not affect the jurisdiction of that Court because the findings recorded by that authority are in relation to the non-residential requirement alone.Even otherwise, that would not affect the jurisdiction of the said Court.
6. So far as powers of this Court under section 23-E are concerned, true it is that in 1985 JLJ 793 this Court has observed that the powers of this Court under section 23-E of the Act" are more than the powers of a Court -under section 115 CPC, but the Court has simultaneously observed that the powers are comparatively lesser than an appellate Court. The question ultimately would be as to, to what extent on the principles of appreciation of evidence, this Court is required to make an interference. If it is a simple case under section 115 CPC, 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
