Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
Shantanu Kemkar, S.K. Seth and Prakash Shrivastava, JJ.
Shri Badrilal
Vs.
Smt. Sita Bai and Ors.
Second Appeal No. 478/2004
Decided On: 28.01.2011
Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 reads as under:
"12(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:
(f) that the accommodation let for nond`residential purpose is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable nond`residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. [Para 8]
Held : Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above and also the object of the enactment and adopting a balanced approach, we find that phrase "his business" in section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act not only means the need for continuing or starting the individual business of the landlord but it also includes the need for continuing or starting the business of any member of the family covered by section 2(e) of the M.P. Act, on whom the landlord is so closely dependent or who is so closely dependent on the landlord that his need for all practical purposes is the need of the landlord. Since major sons and unmarried daughters have been separately included in section 12(1)(f), therefore, they stand on different footing and the landlord can SCCk eviction for their independent individual business need even if they are not dependent on landlord or landlord is not dependent on them. Thus, in view of above interpretation of section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act, we hold that the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Nandkishore (supra), laying down that right of eviction in respect of nond`residential accommodation under section 12( 1)( f) of the M.P. Act is restricted to the landlord for his own business and there is no scope for a liberal interpretation of the phrase "his business" so as to include the business of spouse, is no longer a good law. (1979) 1 SCC 273, (1980) 1 SCC 290, (1987)4 SCC 238, (1989)4 SCC 612, (1998)2 SCC 1, (1999)6 SCC 222, AIR 2002 se 2256, AIR 2003 se 2024 and AIR 2005 se 2632 followed. 1951 NLJ 250 relied on. (1999)7 SCC 589, (2008)9 SCC 699, (2010)5 SCC 196, (2009)9 SCC 729 and AIR 1974 SC 1026 distinguished. 1974 JLJ 400 held on longer a good law. [Paras 22 & 30]
LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½¼p½ & csn[kyh ds fy, okn && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Hkw&Lokfeuh ds ikS= dk dkjckj izkjaHk djus dh lnHkkoiw.kZ vko‘;drk ds vk/kkj ij fMdzh fd;k x;k && gLr{ksi dh vko‘;drk ugha && ikS= dh vko‘;drk Lo;a Hkw&Lokfeuh dh vko‘;drk ekuh tk,xh && D;ksafd mldk Hkw&Lokfeuh ls bruk fudV dk laca/k gS fd lHkh O;kogkfjd iz;kstuksa ds fy, mldh vko‘;drk Hkw&Lokfeuh dh vko‘;drk gSA e/; izns‘k LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ fuEu izdkj ls ifBr gS % ^^12¼1½ fdlh vU; fof/k ;k lafonk esa varfoZ"V fdlh izfrdwy ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] fdlh vfHk/kkjh ds fo:)] fdlh LFkku ls mldh csn[kyh ds fy, flfoy U;k;ky; esa dksbZ okn fuEufyf[kr vk/kkjksa esa ls fdlh ,d ;k vf/kd vk/kkjksa ij gh Qkby fd;k tk,xk vU;Fkk ugha] vFkkZr~ % ¼p½ ;g fd] fuoklsrj iz;kstuksa ds fy, HkkM+s ij fn, x, LFkku dh Hkw&Lokeh dks viuk ;k vius o;Ld iq=ksa esa ls fdlh o;Ld iq= ;k vius vfookfgr iqf=;ksa esa ls fdlh vfookfgr iq=h dk] ;fn og mldk Lokeh gks] ;k fdlh ,sls O;fDr dk] ftlds fd Qk;ns ds fy, og LFkku /kkfjr gS] dksbZ dkjckj pkyw j[kus ;k izkjaHk djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, okLrfod vko‘;drk gS vkSj ;g fd lacaf/kr ‘kgj esa ;k uxj esa ,sls Hkw&Lokeh ;k ,sls O;fDr ds vf/kHkksx esa viuk Lo;a dk ;qfDr;qDr :i ls mi;qDr dksbZ vU; fuoklsrj LFkku ugha gSA** ¼iSjk 8½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Åij mfYyf[kr fu.kZ;ksa esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k rFkk vf/kfu;fefr ds mn~ns‘; dks Hkh /;ku esa j[krs gq, rFkk larqfyr n`"Vhdks.k viukrs gq,] gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ esa in ^^mldk dkjckj** ls dsoy Hkw&Lokeh dh O;fDrxr dkjckj tkjh j[kus ;k izkjaHk djus dh vko‘;drk gh vfHkizsr ugha gS cfYd blesa e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼M+½ }kjk vkPNkfnr dqVqac ds fdlh Hkh ,sls lnL; dk dkjckj tkjh j[kus ;k izkjaHk djus dh vko‘;drk Hkh lfEefyr gS ftl ij Hkw&Lokeh ;k tks Hkw&Lokeh ij bruk vf/kd vkfJr gS fd lHkh O;ogkfjd iz;kstuksa ds fy, mldh vko‘;drk Hkw&Lokeh dh vko‘;drk gSA D;ksafd o;Ld iq= rFkk vfookfgr iqf=;k¡ /kkjk 12 ¼1½¼p½ esa izFkd~r% lfEefyr fd, x, gSa] blfy, mudk LFkku fHkUu gS rFkk Hkw&Lokeh mudh Lora= O;fDrxr dkjckj vko‘;drk ds fy, csn[kyh dh ek¡x rc Hkh dj ldrk gS tc os Hkw&Lokeh ij ;k Hkw&Lokeh mu ij vkfJr u gksA bl izdkj e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ¼1½¼p½ ds mi;ZqDr fuoZpu dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] ge vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gS fd uanfd‘kksj ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa bl U;k;ky; dh iwoZ [kaM U;k;ihB dk ;g vfHkfu?kkZfjr djus okyk fu.kZ; fd e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu vfuoklh LFkku ds lanHkZ esa csn[kyh dk vf/kdkj Hkw&Lokeh ds vius Lo;a ds dkjckj rd fucZf/kr gS rFkk in ^^viuk dkjckj** ds brus mnkj fuoZpu dh dksbZ O;kfIr ugha gS ftlls fd blesa iRuh dk dkjckj lfEefyr gks lds] vc ekU; fof/k ugha gSA ¼1979½1 ,l lh lh 273] ¼1980½1 ,l lh lh 290] ¼1987½4 ,l lh lh 238] ¼1989½4 ,l lh lh 612] ¼1998½2 ,l lh lh 1] ¼1999½6 ,l lh lh 222] , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 2256] , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 2024 rFkk , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 2632 vuqlfjrA 1951 ,u ,y ts 250 voyafcrA ¼1999½7 ,l lh lh 589] ¼2008½9 ,l lh lh 699] ¼2010½5 ,l lh lh 196] ¼2009½7 ,l lh lh 729 rFkk , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1026 izHksfnrA 1974 ts ,y ts 400 vc ekU; fof/k ugha vfHkfu/kkZfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 30½
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
1. This Full Bench has been constituted for deciding the following question:
(i) Whether the decision in Nandkishore v. Sarjudevi reported in 1974 MPLJ 293 is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and as such, has it lost efficacy as a binding precedent?
2. A brief background is that a suit was filed by the Respondent-landlord for eviction of the Appellant-tenant inter alia on the ground of bonafide need of starting the business of her grand-son from the suit accommodation under Section 12(1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the M.P. Act"). The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the eviction decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the second appeal was admitted by this Court on the substantial question relating to recognizing the business need of grandson of landlord under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act.
3. At the time of hearing of the second appeal before the learned Single Judge, Counsel for the Appellant had placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Nandkishore v. Sarjudevi reported in 1974 MPLJ 293, wherein the need of a landlord's spouse for eviction was not recognized under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act. As against this the learned Counsel for the Respondent had advanced arguments based upon the Division Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in the matter of V.N. Deshmukh v. KM. Kothari reported in 1951 NLJ 250, and the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Muthu v. Aangamathu Animal reported in AIR 1997 SC 628, Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal reported in AIR 2002 SC 2256 and Dwarka Prasad v. Niranjan reported in AIR 2003 SC 2024, and had submitted that in view of these subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court the need of the grandson of the landlord was covered under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act and the earlier Division Bench judgment in the matter of Nandkishore (supra), was no longer a good law. Learned Single Judge further referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash Chand and Anr. v. Dharam Das reported in AIR 2005 SC 2362, observed that in all these decisions while construing other rent legislations, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have preferred dynamic and purposive interpretation and refused to take a narrow and parochial view of the expression "of his own" in the context of eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement, therefore, the learned Single Judge had directed for placing the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring the above quoted question for decision to a Larger Bench and accordingly this Full Bench has been constituted.
4. Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-tenant submitted that the subject of legislation relating to the rent Act is a State subject, due to which different States have differently worded rent enactments, therefore, they are to be interpreted in the light of the expressed language used therein. Referring to the Legislative history of rent enactment in Madhya Pradesh, he submitted that the Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act has been intentionally worded in such a manner that only the need of the landlord, his major sons or unmarried daughters is covered under this Section. He has also referred to the report of the Select Committee to emphasize his argument relating to the Legislative intent. He has submitted that subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court noted in the reference order are on the interpretation of the provisions of the rent Acts of other States, the wordings of which are different from M.P. Act, therefore, those judgments cannot be relied upon for interpreting the provisions of the M.P. Act. He has further submitted that interpretation of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Act done by this Court in the matter of Nandkishore (supra) is correct. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supre
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
