Back
1994 JLJ 26
S.K. Dubey and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Om prakash Gupta (Dr.) v. Ram Prakash and others
M.P. No. 1026 of 1988; Decided on 20.11.1991.
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- legal fiction -- is created for specific limited purpose -- its purpose cannot be extended beyond that legitimate field -- Court applying legal fiction has to first ascertain that very purpose. AIR 1955 SC 661 followed. Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh, C,J. Page 208, relied on. [Para 9
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) --S.12 (J) -- suit for eviction based on several grounds enumerated under -- Court can pass decree on the ground found duly established. 1991 MPLJ 801 relied on. [Para 10
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 23-H, 23-A and 13 (6) -- eviction application before Rent Controlling Authority pending -- tenant is bound to deposit arrears of rent from the date of such application -- default on the part of tenant -- may result his defence being struck out. 1989 JLJ 46 relied on. [Para 12
(5) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S.11 -- M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – S13 -- amount of rent paid by tenant during pendency of rent -- no court-fees can be levied upon such amount u amount of court-fees is levied in execution of the mesne profits decreed by the Court. 1971 JLJ 130, 1981 MPJR 73, 1978 (I) MPWN 446 and 1975 JLJ 40 relied on. [Para 13
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (e) or (j) -- eviction application transferred to civil Court by R.C.A. under section 9 of the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment Act, 1985 -- landlord amending plaint and claiming arrears of rent also -- he will have to pay ad valorem court-fees on the amount claimed and on the relief of eviction under section 7 (xi) (cc) of court-fees Act. 1982 MPWN 401 relied on. [Para 15
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.6 R.17 -- cause of action sought to be in corporated by way of amendment becoming barred by time -- such amendment should be refused. AIR 1957 SC 363 followed. [Para 16
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (e) or (j) -- M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1985 -- S.9-application for eviction transferred from R.C.A. to civil Court under S.9 of the amending Act -- prayer for arrears of rent becoming barred by time -- plaintiff cannot be forced to pay court-fees on such relief.
The RCA was not vested with the jurisdiction to pass a decree under S. 12 (1) (a) of the Act; the petitioner/plaintiff having failed to institute a suit in the civil Court for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the ground under S. 12 (1) (a) and having allowed a part of the claim to become barred by time, cannot claim the arrears of rent till the date of filing of the application before the RCA. When a part of that claim cannot be allowed by amendment, then the plaintiff/landlord cannot be forced to make the payment of ad valorem court-fees on the arrears of rent due from 1.6.1980. Therefore, the suit valued by the landlord and the court-fees paid in accordance with S. 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court-fees Act, in the opinion of this Court, was proper. [Para 17
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & fof/kd dYiuk & /kkj.kk mica/k le>s x, rF; ds vufLrRo dh LohÑfr gS & fo/kkueaMy /kkj.kk mica/k vf/kfu;fer djus ds i;kZIr :i ls l{ke gSA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 191 rFkk , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 352 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8 ¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & fof/kd dYiuk & fofufnZ"V & lhfer ç;kstu ds fy, l`"V dh tkrh gS & blds ç;kstu dk foLrkj.k ml fof/k lEer {ks= ls ijs ugha fd;k tk ldrk & U;k;ky; dks fof/kd dYiuk ykxw djus ds iwoZ og fof‘k"V ç;kstu vfHkfuf‘pr djuk gksxkA , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 661 vuqlfjrA eq-U;k-th-ih- flag Ñr fçfUliYl vkQ LVsV~;wVjh baVjfçVs‘ku] i`"B 208 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 9 ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 ¼1½ & ds v/khu çxf.kr vusd vk/kkjksa ij vk/kkfjr csn[kyh dk okn & U;k;ky; lE;d~ :i ls LFkkfir vk/kkj ij fMØh ikfjr dj ldrk gSA 1991 ,l ih ,y ts 801 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 10 ¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 23 t 23 d rFkk 13 ¼6½ & csn[kyh dk vkosnu HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh ds le{k yafcr & vfHk/kkjh ,sls vkosnu dh rkjh[k ls HkkM+s dh cdk;k dk fu{ksi djus ds fy, vkc) gS & vfHk/kkjh dh vksj ls O;fDrØe & mldh çfrj{kk dkVs tkus esa ifj.kkfer gks ldrk gSA 1989 ts ,y ts 46 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 12 ¼5½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 & /kkjk 11 & e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 13 & HkkM+s dh jde vfHk/kkjh }kjk okn ds yacu dky esa lanÙk & ,slh jde ij U;k;ky; Qhl mn~x`ghr ugha dh tk ldrh & U;k;ky; Qhl U;k;ky; }kjk fMØhr var%dkyhu ykHk ds fu"iknu esa mn~x`ghr dh tkrh gSA 1971 ts ,y ts 130] 1981 ,e ih ts vkj 73] 1978 ¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 446 rFkk 1975 ts ,y ts 40 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 13 ¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ rFkk 12 ¼1½ ¼M-½ vFkok ¼p½ csn[kyh dk vkosnu HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh }kjk e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1985 dh /kkjk ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; dks varfjr & Hkw&Lokeh }kjk okn Ik= esa la‘kks/ku vkSj HkkM+s dh cdk;k dk Hkh nkok & mls nkok dh jde ij csn[kyh ds vuqrks"k ij U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ¼xi½ ¼xx½ ds v/khu ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl dk lank; djuk gksxkA 1982 e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 401 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 15 ¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-16 fu-17 & le; oftZr okn gsrqd la‘kks/ku }kjk varfoZ"V fd;k tkuk vHkhfIlr & ,slk la‘kks/ku ukeatwj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 363 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16 ¼8½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ rFkk 12 ¼1½ ¼M-½ vFkok ¼p½ & e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 9 & ds v/khu csn[kyh dk vkosnu HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh ls flfoy U;k;ky; dks varfjr & HkkM+s dh cdk;k dk vkosnu le; oftZr & oknh dks ,sls vuqrks"k ij U;k;ky; Qhl ds lank; ds fy, ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ ds v/khu fMØh ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk fufgr ugha Fkh( ;kph@oknh ds /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ ds v/khu vk/kkj ij HkkM+s dh cdk;k dh olwyh ds fy, flfoy U;k;ky; esa okn lafLFkr djus esa vlQy jgus ds dkj.k rFkk nkos dk Hkkx le; oftZr gksus nsus ds dkj.k] og HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh ds le{k vkosnu çLrqr djus dh rkjh[k rd ds HkkM+s dh cdk;k jde dk nkok ugha dj ldrkA tc ml nkos dk dksbZ Hkkx la‘kks/ku }kjk vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk rc oknh@Hkw&Lokeh 1-6-1980 ls ns; HkkM+s dh cdk;k ij ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl ds lank; ds fy, ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa] Hkw&Lokeh }kjk U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ¼xi½ ¼xx½ ds vuqlkj okn dk ewY;kadu rFkk lanÙk U;k;ky; Qhl mfpr FkhA ¿iSjk 17
S.K. Dubey, .I.--1. This petition by landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of the order (Annexure P/10) passed in revision, preferred by the tenants, aggrieved of the order of the trial Court, whereby, on transfer of the application under S. 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the' Act', the Civil Court treated the same as a plaint to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the Act, in view of S. 9 of the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No.7 of 1985) (for short, the 'Amendment Act'), and directed the landlord to pay the Court-fees as leviable in accordance with S. 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner/landlord filed an application on 28.9.1984 under S. 23-A of the Act seeking eviction of the respondents (No.1 and 2)/tenants from the non-residential accommodation on bona fide requirement. Because of the enforcement of the Amendment Act from 27.4.1985 the applications by landlords (except those who do not fall in the categories defined in S. 23-J of the Act) for obtaining order of eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide need, stood transferred for trial to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in view of S. 9 of the Amendment Act, which reads as under:-
"9. Transfer of pending application to civil Court.--An application filed by the landlord, other than that defined in section 23-J, to evict the tenant exclusively on the ground of "bona fide" requirement of accommodation under section 23-A of the Principal Act before 16th January 1985 and pending on such date before The Rent Controlling Authority shall stand transferred to a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III as if it were a plaint."
3. On transfer of the application, received on 17.12.1985, the District Judge made it over to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The tenants without filing the written statement, moved an application on 22.8.1987 for dismissing the suit under O. 7, R. 11, CPC, for non-payment of the requisite Court-fees on the plaint. The landlord amended the plaint and paid Court-fees of Rs. 772/- valuing the claim for ejectment on the basis of annual rental value in accordance with the provisions of S. 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. The tenants contended that the Court-fees has to be paid not only on the basis of the valuation of the suit as above, but ad valorem Court-fee is to be paid on the arrears of rent till 17.11.1987. The trial Court dismissed the application. Review application was also dismissed. The tenants took the matter in revision before the District Judge. The revisional Court (First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior) allowed the revision and directed the landlord to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the arrears of rent claimed till 17.11.1987, placing reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Decon Marketing Ltd. v. Kallu Bhai, 1986 MPRCJ 306, wherein it is observed:
"Order IV, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court. Rule 2 provides that the Court shall cause the suit to be entered in the register of suits. Order V, Rule 1 provides that when a suit has been 'duly instituted,' a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim on a date to be specified therein. The phrase 'duly instituted' must mean a plaint with proper court-fees and other essential requirements of a plaint. It was not disputed before me that respondent No.1 did not Pay court-fees required on plaint in an eviction suit. It was the first and foremost duty of the transferee civil Court to have called upon the plaintiff to make good the deficit Court-fee before proceeding further in the suit. The plaintiff did not dispute that if the 'application' is treated as plai
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
