Back
1996 JLJ 357
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Hansraj v. Gomti and others
Misc. Petn. No. 142 of 1993; Decided on 19.6.1995.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2 (b), 2 (i) and 12 (1) -- no relationship of" landlord" as defined in S. 2 (b) and "tenant" as defined in S. 2 (i) existing between parties -- no suit for eviction under S, 12 (1) is maintainable. [Para 14
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2 (b), 2 (i) and 12 (1) -- parties having no status of landlord and tenant -- eviction suit cannot be filed under S. 12 (1) even by owner. [Para 15
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12 -- person inducting tenant without any right, title or interest in the properly -- such alleged tenants acquires nothing -- no protection under the Act can be claimed by him. 1966 JLJ 1069 and AIR 1989 SC 436 relied on. [Para 15
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 -- defendant denying title of plaintiff/landlord -- compelling him to convert his suit as a title suit and for restoration of possession and for paying ad-valorem court-fee -- not entitled to protection under the Act. 1981 MPRCJ NOC 70 relied on. [Para 17
(6) Decree -- difficulties of litigant in India begin when he obtains a decree -- Courts have to be vigilant against frivolous objections. [Para 18
(7) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 47 -- objection against execution taken with misstatement of material fact -- ulterior malafide motive is apparent. [Para 21
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 & vfHk/kkjh }kjk Hkw&Lokeh ds gd dk çR;k[;ku & gd Lo;a esa fufgr gksus dk nkok & okn] ?kks"k.kk okn ds :i esa laifjofrZr fd;k tkuk vuqKkr & eqdnes ds vafre çØe rd oknh dk ?kks"k.kk ds fy, okn fMØhr & oknh }kjk fu"iknu dk;Zokgh esa ;g dgk tkuk vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd fMØh /kkjk 12 ds v/khu gksuk pkfg, FkhA ¿iSjk 8
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼[k½] 2 ¼>½ rFkk 12¼1½ & i{kdkjkas ds e/; /kkjk 2 ¼[k½ ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ^^Hkw&Lokeh** rFkk 2 ¼>½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ^^vfHk/kkjh** ds laca/k fo|eku ugha & /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dk okn pykus ;ksX; ughaA ¿iSjk 14
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼[k½] 2 ¼>½ rFkk 12¼1½ & i{kdkjksa dh çkfLFkfr Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh dh ugha & csn[kyh dk okn Lokeh }kjk Hkh Qkby ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿iSjk 15
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 & laifÙk esa fcuk fdlh vf/kdkj] gd vFkok fgr ds] O;fDr }kjk vfHk/kkjh clk;k x;k & ,sls vfHkdfFkr vfHk/kkjh dks dqN vftZr ugha gksrk & og vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fdlh laj{k.k dk nkok ugha dj ldrkA 1966 ts ,y ts 1069 rFkk , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 436 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 15
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 & çfroknh }kjk oknh Hkw&Lokeh ds gd dk çR;k[;ku] mldk okn] ?kks"k.kk vkSj dCts ds fy, okn esa laifjofrZr djus ds fy, rFkk ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl lanÙk djus ds fy, foo‘k fd;k x;k & vf/kfu;e ds v/khu laj{k.k dk gdnkj ughaA 1981 ,e ih vkj lh ts ,u vks lh 70 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 17
¼6½ fMØh & Hkkjr esa eqdnesckt dks dfBukbZ çkjaHk gks tkrh gS tc og fMØh çkIr dj ysrk gS & U;k;ky; dks rqPN vk{ksiksa ds fo#) lrdZ jguk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 18
¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 47 & fu"iknu ds fo#) vk{ksi rkfRod rF;ksa ds v;FkkFkZ dFku ds lkFk & varjLFk vln~Hkkoiw.kZ gsrq Li"V gSA ¿iSjk 21
1. In this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the quashing has been prayed of the orders filed as Annexure P/I0 and P/12 passed respectively by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior, in Execution Case No. 47N60-91 and by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Revision No. 171/92.
2. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by both the parties, it is relevant to mention here the broad features and facts of the case:
Respondent No.1 Gomti Bai W/o Bhagwandas had filed the suit in the year 1961 against the petitioner for eviction from the suit house on the basis of tenancy. In the suit, she had in the alternative also claimed possession on the basis of her title in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
3. The petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He had asserted his possession on the suit house as owner of the property. His case was that the rent house was an evacuee property and under a conveyance deed, executed by President of India, in his favour, he was the landlord himself and the respondent had no right title or interest in the suit house. It may be relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had transferred the suit house by way of the sale deed in favour of his two brothers named Mulak Raj and Baldev Raj and had allegedly parted with its possession.
4. In second appeal, respondent No.1 had moved an application for amendment, for the trial of the suit only as a suit for possession on the basis of title.
This Court in S.A. 179 of 1977 in the circumstances of the case observed that :-"3. xx xx xx xx xx
It is true that the suit had remained pending for more than 12 years. It is also apparent that despite there being a claim for possession on the basis of title, no specific issue was framed on that count and the matter was also not tried accordingly."
Since the plaintiff/respondent No.1's claim was not purely on the ground of relationship of landlord and tenant as it was based also on the title and the defendant/petitioner was denying the relationship of landlord-tenant, the defendant/respondent gave up those grounds for his eviction on that count. The application was allowed.
5. This Court then remitted the case to the trial Court for trying the suit in view of the amendment made in the plaint. The judgment of this Court was also challenged in vain before the Apex Court. The suit was again tried and decreed by the learned trial Court vide Annexure P/4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed under judgment (Annex. P/5) and again a second appeal No. 95/90 was preferred by the petitioner, but that too was dismissed under Annexure P/6. The petitioner had further approached the Apex Court, but his that effort too went in vain.
After the second round of litigation, respondent No.1 pressed the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed upto the Apex Court and sought the possession of the house. The petitioner resisted the execution and filed objections under section 47 of C.P.C. The objections of the petitioner were rejected by the Executing Court under Order Annexure P/10 and the revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide Annexure P/12. Thereafter, this petition has been preferred and the quashing of the order passed by the Executing Court Annexure P/10 and the order of confirmation passed in revision by the lower Revisional Court Annexure P/12 is sought.
6. Shri R.D. Jain, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has strenuously argued that since respondent No.1 had recognised the status of the petitioner as that of a tenant, his eviction could be sought only under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Since no decree was passed on any of the grounds provided under section 12 of the Act, respondent No.1 was
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
