Khuman Singh vs Nathuram - 1990 Supreme(MP) 98

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(MP) 98

1991 JLJ 348
S. Awasthy, J.
Khuman Singh v. Nathuram.
S.A. No. 360 of 1986; against the decree and judgment passed by Shri R.S. Berdia, 4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 72-A of 1983, arising out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri K. Das, 11th Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur in C.S. No. 15-A of 1982;
Decided on 14.2.1990.

Advocates:
K.N. Agarwal for appellant; K.L. Issrani for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.12(1)(a) and 13(2) -- entire arrears of rent paid -- dispute under section 13(2) not decided -- delay in deposit may be condoned. [Para 7
        (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- tenant denying derivative title of the landlord -- no decree can be passed under this provision -- tenant cannot deny title of landlord who inducted him in the tenanted premises. 1985 MPRCJ-SN 93, 1970 JLJ 20, 1979 JLJ 126 and AIR 1937 PC 251 relied on. [Paras 10 & 11
        (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- tenant pleading that plaintiff not being sale owner, his suit is not maintainable -- this is not disclaimer of title. 1979 MPRCJ 102. [Para 12
        (4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- disclaimer of landlords‘ title in written statement -- no eviction decree can be passed on this basis. [Para 13
        (5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.12(1)(e) and 12(4) -- suit for eviction filed wider S. 12(1)(e) within a period of one year from the date of purchase -- averment of bona fide need made in initial plaint -- amendment after one year made to the effect that one year has elapsed from date of purchase -- decree under S. 12(1)(e) cannot be passed in view of S. 12(4). 1983 JLJ 107(FB), 1980 JLJ 475, 1981(1) MPWN 110, AIR 1975 Delhi 46(FB), AIR 1975 SC 1409, AIR 1976 SC 49, AIR 1959 AP 9, AIR 1978 Pat. 91 discussed. [Paras 19 to 21
        ¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼,½ ,oa 13 ¼2½ && HkkM+s dk leLr cdk;k lanÙk && /kkjk 13 ¼2½ ds v/khu fookn dk fofu‘p;u ugha fd;k x;k && fu{ksi ds foyac dks ekQ fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 7

        ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼lh½ && vfHk/kkjh }kjk Hkw&Lokeh ds O;qRiUu gd ls badkj && bl mica/k ds v/khu fMØh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrh && vfHk/kkjh ml Hkw&Lokeh ds gd ls badku ugha dj ldrk ftlus mls vfHk/k`r ifjlj esa izos‘k fn;k gSA 1985 ,e ih vkj lh ts &,l ,u 93] 1970 ts ,y ts 20] 1979 ts ,y ts 126 ,oa , vkb vkj 1937 ih lh 251 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10 ,oa 11

        ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼lh½ && vfHk/kkjh dk vfHkopu fd oknh ,dek= Lokeh u gksus ls mldk okn pykus ;ksX; ugha gS && ;g gd dk badkj ugha gSA 1979 ,e ih vkj lh ts 102A ¿ iSjk 12

        ¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼lh½ && fyf[kr dFku esa Hkw&Lokeh ds gd dk badkj && bl vk/kkj ij csn[kyh ds fy, fMØh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 13

        ¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼b½ ,oa 12 ¼4½ && Ø; djus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh dkykof/k ds Hkhrj csn[kyh dk okn Qkby fd;k x;k && izkjafHkd okni= esa okLrfod vko‘;drk ds vfHkopu fd, x, && ,d o"kZ ds i‘pkr~ ;g la‘kks/ku fd Ø; dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ O;ixr gks x;k gS && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼b½ ds v/khu /kkjk 12 ¼4½ ds vuqlkj fMØh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA 1983 ts ,y ts 107 ¼iw.kZ ihB½] 1980 ts ,y ts 475] 1981¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 110] 1975 , vkb vkj fnYyh 46 ¼iw.kZ ihB½] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1409] , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 49 , vkb vkj 1959 , ih 9] , vkb vkj 1978 iVuk 91 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 19 ls 21

JUDGMENT

S. Awasthy, J. -- 1. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 62-A of 1983 by th6 4th Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Jabalpur arising out of the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1983 passed in Civil Suit No. 15-A of 1982 by the 11th Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur.

2. The plaintiff-respondent pleaded that he purchased house No. 221, Gokalpur from one Umashankar Pandey vide registered sale-deed dated 5.3.1976. He claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month from the date of purchase vide notice dated 21.4.76 which was served on the appellant on 3.8.76. The rent was not paid within 2 months of the service of notice, hence a ground under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') accrued to him. He had purchased the house for the purpose of residence of himself and his family members. He has no other suitable residential accommodation in Jabalpur town, hence a ground under section 12(1)(e) of the Act accrued in his favour. The defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff in his written statement, hence ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act also accrued in his favour. It was also pleaded that the defendant has two more houses in his possession, hence a ground under section 12(1)(i) of the Act for eviction of the tenant is available to the plaintiff-landlord. Since the defendant did not vacate the house, the suit was filed on 20.10.76 for his ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 92.50 p.

3. The defendant-appellant stated in his written statement that Rameshwar Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal were his landlords. Both of them are now dead. Rameshwar Dayal is survived by his two sons viz., Umashankar and Shivshankar while Parmeshwar Dayal is survived by his widow and sons. The suit house is purchased from Umashankar only. Therefore, by virtue of purchase of the house the plaintiff-respondent alone is not his landlord and the owner of the house. It is admitted that the defendant is a tenant in the suit house on Rs. 15/- monthly rent. The alleged purchase by the plaintiff-respondent was also denied. It is also denied that any notice of demand was served on the appellant. It is averred that the plaintiff-respondent alone is not entitled to recover the entire rent from the appellant-defendant. The alleged need of the plaintiff was also denied. It was stated by the defendant that the suit has been filed within one year of the alleged purchase, hence not maintainable under section 12(4) of the Act. It is also pleaded that the defendant has no house belonging to him, hence no decree under section 12(1)(i) of the Act could be passed against him. It was pleaded that the rent upto the month of June, 1976 was paid to the widow of Parmeshwar Dayal, Shivshankar and Umashankar Pandey; hence the rent of the premises is due only since July, 1976. The defendant has spent Rs. 250/- in the repairs of the house which amount is liable to be adjusted in the arrears of rent. It is also pleaded that there was an agreement entered by the wife of the appellant for purchasing the suit house with the owners and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- has been paid as earnest money for which a suit is pending in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur. Till the disposal of that suit the proceedings in this suit should be stayed.

4. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant is the tenant of the respondent from 5.3.76 when he purchased the suit house from Umashankar Pandey, who was his landlord as he was collecting rent. Since Nathuram-respondent has stated that he has purchased the house for his residential purposes and he is living in the house of one Girjabai as her tenant and since there is no other alternative residential accommodation available to him, hence he is entitled to a decree under section 12(1)(e) of the Act.

5. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has hel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(MP) 98

Cases Referred (7)