Back
1992 JLJ 728
R.C. Lahoti, J.
Navalmal v. Laxman Singh and another
S.A. No. 132 of 1987; Decided on 7.3.1991.
(2) Landlord and Tenant -- law must be made rational, human, certain and capable of being quickly implemented. AIR 1987 SC 2117 followed. [Para 8.4
(3) Landlord and Tenant -- imposition of restrictions on the right of landlord and the consequent extent of protection to be given to tenants -- is a matter of legislative policy and judgment. AIR 1987 SC 2117 followed. [Para 8.4
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12 (3), (8), (9), (10) & (11) -- normally disqualification of tenant depriving him protection of the Act takes its course to the end -- subsequent events do not reverse operation of law -- these provisions are exceptions to general rule vide which the tenant is statutorily protected. [Para 9.2
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b), (8), (9), (10) & (11) -- suit on the ground of sub-letting -- subsequent restoration of possession from sub-tenant by tenant --does not remove disqualification of the tenant as no statutory protection analogous to sub-sections (8) to (11) is provided in the Act.
Having provided for lifting away the bar imposed on filing a suit for eviction against a tenant, by virtue of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of that Act, the Legislature has not provided for such disability being cured or removed by enacting anything in the subsequent sub-sections of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, analogous with the provisions contained in sub-sections (8) to (11). The provision rendering tenant liable to ejectment on the ground of subletting, parting with possession or assignment of interest is founded on the principle that the tenant who has shown by his such conduct that he does no more need the premises for himself must yield it to the landlord arid no one else nor he should be permitted to enrich himself at the cost of the landlord. AIR 1975 SC 2156 followed. 1977 JLJ SN 85 (DB), 1984 MPRCJ SN 8, SN 41 and 1986 (II) MPWN 135 relied on. [Para 11
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b) -- sub-letting -- occupation of stranger proved by landlord -- onus shifts on the tenant to discharge his obligation. 1977 JLJ 434, 1979 JLJ 245 and 1961 JLJ 478 relied on. [Para 17
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12 (1) (b) -- tenant parting with possession to his brother -- ground of eviction becomes available to landlord. 1988 MPRCJ 67 (SC) followed. 1975 JLJ 57 relied on. [Para 20.1
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12 (1) (b) -- proof of tenancy or sub-tenancy.
In order to prove tenancy or sub-tenancy two ingredients have to be established firstly, the tenant (or the sub-tenant) must have exclusive right of possession or interest in the premises or part of the premises in question and secondly that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. AIR 1987 SC 2055 and AIR 1990 SC 1208 followed. . [Para 20
(9) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b) -- tenant parting with possession without assigning or sub-letting - - still liable to be evicted. AIR 1989 SC 1416 followed. [Para 21
(10) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (b) -- written consent of landlord to sub-let -- is a statutory requirement --question of waiver does not arise. AIR 1988 SC 145 followed. [Para 23
(11) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.23-A (a) and (b) -application for eviction for residential purpose under S.23-A (a) -- landlord is not required to prove his ownership -- if purpose nond`residential under clause (b) he has to prove his ownership. 1990 JLJ 714 relied on. [Para 25
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && HkkM+k fu;a=.k fo/kku && fuoZpu fuekZ.k rFkk iqufuZek.k izksRlkfgr djus ds fy, fd;k tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2117 vuqlfjrA
¿ iSjk 8-4À
¼2½ Hkw&Lokeh rFkk vfHk/kkjh && fof/k ;qfDrlaxr] ekuoh;] fuf‘pr rFkk ‘kh?kzrk ls dk;kZfUor fd, tkus ;ksX; gksuk gh pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2117 vuqlfjr
¿ iSjk 8-4À
¼3½ Hkw&Lokeh rFkk vfHk/kkjh && Hkw&Lokeh ds vf/kdkjksa ij fucZa/kuksa dk vf/kjksi.k rFkk vfHk/kkfj;ksa dks fn, tkus okys laj{k.k dk ifj.kkeh ifjek.k && fo/kk;h ikfylh rFkk fu.kZ; dk ekeyk gSA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2117 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8-4À
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼3½] ¼8½] ¼9½] ¼10½ ,oa ¼11½ && lkekU;r% vfHk/kkjh dks vf/kfu;e ds laj{k.k ls oafpr djus okyh fujgZrk vius vuqØe ds var rd tkjh jgrh gS && i‘pkr~orhZ ?kVuk,¡ fof/k ds izorZu dks myV ugha nsrh gS && ;s mica/k lk/kkj.k fu;e ds viokn gSa ftlds }kjk vfHk/kkjh dkuwuh rkSj ij lajf{kr gSA
¿ iSjk 9-2À
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½] ¼8½] ¼9½] ¼10½ ,oa ¼11½ && mi HkkMs+ ds vk/kkj ij okn && rRi‘pkr~ vfHk/kkjh }kjk mi&vfHk/kkjh ls dCts dk izR;korZu && vfHk/kkjh dh fujgZrk dk fujkdj.k ugha djrk D;ksafd vf/kfu;e eas mi/kkjk ¼8½ ls ¼11½ ln`‘k dksbZ laj{k.k micaf/kr ugha gSA
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk] vfHk/kkjh ds fo#) csn[kyh dk okn Qkby fd, tkus ij vf/kjksfir otZu gVk ysus ds fy, mica/k dj ds] fo/kku&eaMy us e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ( 1961 dh /kkjk 12 dh i‘pkr~orhZ mi/kkjkvksa es mi/kkjk ¼8½ ls ¼11½ ls varfoZ"V mica/kksa ls ln`‘k dksbZ Hkh vf/kfu;fefr }kjk ,slh fu;ksZX;rk nwj fd;k tkuk vFkok fujkdj.k micaf/kr ugha fd;k gSA mi&HkkMs+ in nsus ds] dCts ls vyx gksus ds vFkok fgr leuqnsf‘kr djus ds vk/kkj ij vfHk/kkjh dks csn[ky fd, tkus ;ksX; cukus okyk mica/k bl fl)kar ij vk/kkfjr gS fd vfHk/kkjh ftlus vius ,sls vkpj.k ls ;g nf‘kZr dj fn;k gks fd mls vc Lo;a ds fy, ifjlj dh vko‘;drk ugha gS mls og Hkw&Lokeh dks ns gh nsuk pkfg, rFkk fdlh Hkh vU; dks ugha] u gh mls Hkw&Lokeh ds [kpsZ ij Lo;a dsk le`) djus dh vuqKk nh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 2156 vuqlfjrA 1977 ts ,y ts ,l ,u 85 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] 1984 ,e ih vkj lh ts ,l ,u 8] ,l ,u 41 rFkk 1986 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 135 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ && mi&HkkMs+ ij nsuk &Hkw&Lokeh }kjk ijO;fDr dk vf/kHkksx lkfcr && mldh ck/;rk ds mUekspu dk Hkkj vfHk/kkjh ij vk tkrk gSA 1977 ts ,y ts 434] 1979 ts ,y ts 245 rFkk 1961 ts ,y ts 478 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 17À
¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ && vfHk/kkjh vius HkkbZ ds fy, dCts esa vyx gqvk && Hkw&Lokeh dks csn[kyh dk vk/kkj miyC/k gks tkrk gSA 1988 ,e ih vkj lh ts 67 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 1975 ts ,y ts 57 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 20-1À
¼8½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ && vfHk/k`fr vFkok mi&HkkMs+ dk lcwrA
vfHk/k`fr vFkok mi&HkkM+k lkfcr djus ds fy, nks la?kVd LFkkfir fd, tkus gksrs gS % ¼izFker%½ vfHk/kkjh ¼vFkok mi&vfHk/kkjh½ dk iz‘uxr ifjlj vFkok ifjlj ds Hkkx ij dCts dk vuU; vf/kdkj vFkok fgr gksuk gh pkfg, rFkk f}rh;r% ;g vf/kdkj dqN izfrdj vFkok HkkMs+ ds cnys esa gksuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2055 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 1208 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 20À
¼9½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ && vfHk/kkjh leuqns‘ku vFkok mi&HkkMs+ ij fn, fcuk dCts ls vyx gqvk&fQj Hkh csn[ky fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1410 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4À
¼10½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼[k½ && miHkkMs+ ij nsus ds fy, Hkw&Lokeh dh fyf[kr lgefr &dkuwuh vis{kk gS && vf/kR;tu dk iz‘u gh ugha mBrkA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 145 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 23À
¼11½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&d¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½ && /kkjk 23&d¼d½ ds v/khu fuokl ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, csn[kyh djkus ds fy, vkosnu&Hkw&Lokeh }kjk mldk LokfeRo lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha && ;fn iz;kstu [kaM ¼[k½ ds v/khu fuoklsrrj gS rc mls viuk LokfeRo lkfcr djuk gksrk gSA 1990 ts ,y ts 714 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 25À
R.C. Lahoti, J. -- 1. The landlord-plaintiff has come up in second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his suit for eviction of the defendant/respondents.
2. The suit premises admittedly owned by the appellant are non- residential one. The appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant/respondents on the grounds available under section 12 (1) (a), (b) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act, for short). Appellant's entitlement to seek eviction under clauses (a) and (I) has been negatived by the Courts below and those findings have not been challenged. The appellant has persisted in pressing claim for eviction under clause (b) and hence facts relevant to that ground only need be noticed.
3. At this stage, it is no longer in dispute that the two defendant/respondents are real brothers, No.1 being the elder one. The tenancy commenced on 1.5.1968. The rate of rent is Rs. 26/- per month. The plaintiff alleged that though his shop was let out to defendant No.1 alone, he had sub-let the same to the defendant/respondentNo.2 in breach of the contract of tenancy. The plea taken in reply in the written statement is loosely worded. Though the allegation as to sub-tenancy has been denied, it is stated that the shop was taken on tenancy jointly by the two defendants. At another place, in the written statement, it is stated that the shop was taken for the joint family business of the defendants and they were members of a joint Hindu family.
4. The trial Court found the allegation as to sub-tenancy proved. The finding and consequently the decree for ejectment, were confirmed in first appeal in an earlier round when the appeal was disposed of on 3.4.1981. Those judgment and decree were subject- matter of second appeal before this Court, disposed of by an order of remand dated 13.1.1987. This Court in its order noticed the defendant Laxmansingh having stated that he had himself started sitting again in the shop. This Court was of the opinion that it was not necessary to examine whether earlier there had been a sub-letting or not, in view of the law laid down in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, 1981 JLJ 716, Courts below, before passing the decree for eviction under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, were obliged to determine whether on the date on which they were invited to pass the decree, the disability which the tenant had suffered did exist in fact or not. To quote from that order –
"I have no doubt that it has to be determined by the Court below before passing the decree for eviction under section 12(1) (b) as to whether on the date on which the Court was invited to pass the decree the disability which the tenant suffered did exist in fact. Or; in other words, whether the 'tenant', namely, the first defendant was defaulter and was to be penalised for infraction of landlord's right envisaged under section 12 (1) (b). Because of the clear statement"made by him in his evidence that he used to sit in and run the suit shop and was in possession of the suit shop for the last 2/3 years, it has to be determined whether he could still be held liable to be evicted under section 12 (1) (b) despite other evidence on record".
5. The matter reached back the lower appellate Court and the appeal was re-heard. This time, by judgment and decree dated 14.5.1987, the appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent has been allowed entailing dismissal of the suit for ejectment for dual reasons. Vide para 11 of the impugned judgment it has been held that there was no sub-tenancy. Vide para 13, it has been held that assuming the shop was sub-let, the sub-tenancy had ceased to exist and hence the disqualification, if any, incurred by the tenant earlier, had become non-existent and the landlord was not entitled to a decree for ejectment.
6. By order dated 7.11.1987, the second appeal was admitted for hearing parties by this Court on the following three substantial questions of law :--
(i) Whether the fi
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
