IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
Shantanu Kemkar and Abhay M. Naik, JJ.
Leelawatibai (deceased) through L.Rs. Mahendra Kumar and Ors.
Vs.
Radhakishan (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt. Sajjanbai and Ors.
Civil Revision No. 806 of 2001
Decided On: 28.01.2011
Held: In the result, we answer the reference in the following manner:
(1) In an application for eviction by landlord of specified category under section 23-J of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act based on the bona fide requirement of the landlord himself and any other person permitted under clause (a) or (b) of section 23-A of the Act, the death of landlord will not result into abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs substituted in place of the landlord may continue the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority;
(2) In case of death of landlord during the pendency of the application for eviction under Chapter III-A based on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord alone, it would come to an end on death of the landlord and substitution of the legal heirs may not be permitted, because the cause of action, as pleaded in the application would come to an end with the death of the landlord.
(3) If the death of the landlord takes place after the eviction order is passed in his favour, the legal representatives of the landlord nevertheless may continue the revisional proceedings to defend the order of eviction. (1976)4 SCC 417 and AIR 1956 SC 213 followed. (1999) 8 SCC 1 discussed. 2001 (II) MPACJ 169, 1994 JLJ 408, 2004(2) MPLJ 314 and 1999(II) MPJR SN 11 relied on. [Para 29
(2) Accommodation Control Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 16 -- Rent Controlling Authority – may be guided by CPC in the absence of any specific provision. [Para 12
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&d rFkk 23&´ && Hkw&Lokeh dh fo/kok && /kkjk 23&´ ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh dh fofufnZ"V Js.kh ds v/khu vkrh gS && csn[kyh dk okn izLrqr djus esa l{ke && ,sls Hkw&Lokeh dh e`R;q && okn dks lekIr ugha djsxh ;fn csn[kyh dh Lo;a Hkw&Lokeh rFkk /kkjk 23&d ds v/khu vuqKkr fdlh vU; O;fDr dh okLrfod vko‘;drk ds vk/kkj ij bZIlk dh xbZ gks && Hkw&Lokeh ds LFkku ij izfrLFkkfir fof/kd okfjl dk;Zokfg;ksa dks tkjh j[k ldrs gSa && rFkkfi rRizfrdwy] ,slh e`R;q ,sls okn dks lekIr djsxh ;fn csn[kyh dh dsoy Hkw&Lokeh dh gh okLrfod vko‘;drk ds vk/kkj ij bZIlk dh xbZ gksA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ifj.kkeLo:i] ge funsZ‘k dk fuEu izdkj mRrj nsrs gSa %
¼1½ e/; izns‘k LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&´ ds v/khu fofufnZ"V Js.kh ds Hkw&Lokeh }kjk Lo;a Hkw&Lokeh ;k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&d ds [kaM ¼d½ ;k ¼[k½ ds v/khu vuqKkr fdlh vU; O;fDr dh okLrfod vko‘;drk ij vk/kkfjr cs[kyh ds fy, okn esa Hkw&Lokeh dh e`R;q dk;Zokfg;ksa ds ‘keu esa ifj.kkfer ugha gksxh rFkk Hkw&Lokeh ds LFkku esa izfrLFkkfir fof/kd okfjl HkkM+k fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh ds le{k dk;Zokfg;k¡ tkjh j[k ldrs gSA
¼2½ v/;k; 3&d ds v/khu dsoy Hkw&Lokeh dh okLrfod vko‘;drk ds vk/kkj ij vk/kkfjr csn[kyh ds fy, vkosnu ds yafcr jgus ds nkSjku HkwLokeh dh e`R;q dh n‘kk esa] ;g lekIr gks tk,xk rFkk fof/kd okfjlksa ds izfrLFkkiu dh vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrh] D;ksafd] vkosnu esa ;Fkk vfHkopu fd;k x;k okngsrqd Hkw&Lokeh dh e`R;q ds lkFk lekIr gks tk,xkA
¼3½ ;fn Hkw&Lokeh dh e`R;q mlds i{k esa csn[kyh ds vkns‘k ds i‘pkr~ gksrh gS] Hkw&Lokeh ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k blds ckotwn csn[kyh ds vkns‘k dh izfrj{kk ds fy, iqujh{k.k dk;Zokfg;k¡ tkjh j[k ldrs gSaA ¼1976½4 ,l lh lh 417 rFkk , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 213 vuqlfjrA ¼1999½8 ,l lh lh 1 foosfprA 2001¼2½ ,e ih , lh ts 169] 1994 ts ,y ts 408] 2004¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 314 rFkk 1999¼2½ ,e ih ts vkj ,l ,u 11 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 29½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 16 && HkkM+k fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh && fdlh fofufnZ"V mica/k ds vHkko esa flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk }kjk ekxZn‘kZu ys ldrk gSA
¼iSjk 12½
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This reference has been received by us by virtue of order of BrOrs. Shri S.K. Seth, J. dated 1.3.2007, who noticed various conflicting decisions of Single Bench of this Court on the point that whether an application for eviction submitted under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') would continue to be maintainable after the death of landlord of the specified category described under Section 23-J of the said Act.
2. Short facts leading to the reference are that Leelawatibai, widow of Ghanshyamdas alongwith her sons submitted an application for eviction under Section 23-A of the Act with allegations that the suit premises is owned by herself and her sons, which is in occupation of the Defendant-non-applicant as tenant on rent 'Rs.40/-p.m. The house comprising the suit premises belonged to Ghanshyamdas. After his death, it devolved upon the applicants including Leelawatibai. Various Ors. portions of the said house are occupied by four Ors. tenants. It is stated in the application that the suit premises was let out for residential purpose to the non-applicant, which is required bonafide by the applicant for the residence of herself and Ors. members of her family which include sons, daughter-in-laws and grand children. Applications for eviction of Ors. tenants have also been submitted for bonafide residential need.
3. Non-applicant submitted his reply admitting therein his status as tenant in the suit premises. However, it was contended that the suit premises was owned by Jethalal, who happened to be father of Ghanshyamdas and Devidas. Legal heirs of Devidas and Ghanshyamdas are co-owners and the eviction proceedings at the instance of Leelawatibai, widow of Ghanshyamdas and her sons alone is not maintainable. Alleged bonafide need was also refuted with an allegation that the same is not genuine and the applicants have Ors. suitable accommodations for their residence.
4. The eviction application was submitted on 28.3.1994. On 16.3.1998, applicants No. 2 to 7-revisionists submitted an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure informing thereby that Leelawatibai had died on 27.1.1998. Her legal representatives were already on record as applicants No. 2 to 7. This being so, a prayer was made for deleting the name of Leelawatibai from the cause title of the application for eviction. On 7.4.1998, learned Rent Controlling Authority allowed the said application and granted permission to delete the name of Leelawatibail from the cause title of the application for eviction. Thereafter, the application for eviction proceeded on merits. Ultimately, a final order was passed on 29.6.2001 by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Ujjain dismissing thereby the application for eviction with finding that the applicants failed to establish their case. Aggrieved by the same, applicants-revisionists submitted the present civil revision before this Court under Section 23-E of the Act.
5. It came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, brOrs. S.K. Seth, J., who noticed that learned Single Judges of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chand and Ors. v. Nishar Khan 2008 (I) MPWN 71, Smt. Jarina v. Smt. Hazzani and Anr. 2001 (II) MPACJ 169 and Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. Joseph and Anr. 1995 MPACJ 273 have held that after the death of landlord of the specified category under Section 23-J, application for eviction does not survive and is liable to be dismissed. Learned Single Judge further noticed that Ors. learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases reported as Nabi Ahmed v. Ramprakash Rastogi and Ors. 1989 MPRCJ 482, Narain v. Basant Rao 1991 (1) MPWN 166, Hemant Kumar v. Shankarlal and Ors. 1997 (2) MPLJ 671, Girish Chandra Chaturvedi and Anr. v. Smt. Pushpa Bhopatkar and Ors. 1999 (II) MPJR SN 11 have held that despite the death of landlord of the specified category under Section 23-J of the Act, the application for eviction may be pursued by
5. Narain v. Basant Rao 1990 MPJR 517 : 1991 (1) MPWN 166;
7. Shantilal Thakordas and Ors. v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala (1976) 4 SCC 417;
8. Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd v. Nageshwara Rao AIR 1956 SC 213;
9. Gangadhar v. Shantaram Lokre 1994 JLJ 408;
10. Smt. Phool Rani and Ors. v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia AIR 1973 SC 2110;
14. Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L.Rs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1;
15. Shakuntala Bai and Ors. v. Narayan Das and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 772
1. Mahesh Chand and Ors. v. Nishar Khan 2008 (I) MPWN 71;
6. Hemant Kumar v. Shankarlal and Ors. 1997 (2) MPLJ 671;
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.