Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
N.K. Mody, J.
Faqir Mohammad S/o Allahbeli Musalman
Vs.
Gulabchand S/o Jeetmalji Chhajed (dead) through L.Rs.
S.A. No. 440 of 2001
Decided On: 05.08.2010
Strict compliance with the requirements of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is necessary for tenants to claim the benefit of its provisions, and the Court emphasized the need for compliance before passing decrees for eviction.
Headnote:
M.P. Accommodation Control Act - Eviction - Section 12(1)(a), (f), (m) and (o) - 12(10) - 12(11) - The court discussed and referenced Section 12(1)(a), (m), and (o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The key legal provisions were interpreted in relation to the grounds for eviction and the requirements for passing a decree under these sections. The court's decision was influenced by the strict compliance required for the benefit of the provisions of the Act and the mandatory opportunities for the tenant to restore the position under Section 12(10) and 12(11) before passing a decree under Section 12(1)(m) or (o) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent filed a suit for eviction against the Appellant, alleging arrears of rent, dilapidated condition of the accommodation, unauthorized construction, and the need for the accommodation for the Respondent's son. The trial Court decreed the suit under Section 12(1)(a), (m), and (o) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the decree under Section 12(1)(a) was justified despite the absence of a specific issue framed, as the Appellant was aware of the eviction grounds and failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. The decree under Section 12(1)(m) and (o) was upheld based on the construction raised by the Appellant, and the Court emphasized the need for compliance with the Act's provisions before passing such decrees.
Issues: The issues included the justification for passing the decrees under Section 12(1)(a), (m), and (o) of the Act, compliance with the Act's requirements, and the awareness of the eviction grounds by the Appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the Appellant's awareness of the eviction grounds, non-compliance with the Act's provisions, and the findings of both lower Courts regarding the construction raised by the Appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of eviction was made non-executable until a specified date, subject to the Appellant filing an undertaking to hand over possession and pay arrears of rent and future compensation.
N.K. Mody, J.
1. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 6-9-2001 passed by II Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2000, whereby judgment dated 30-8-1999 passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Ratlam, whereby in a suit filed by Respondent under Section 12(1)(a), (f), (m) and (o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short which shall be referred as to the Act) was decreed under Section 12(1)(a), (m) and (o) of the Act was maintained, present appeal has been filed.
2. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 24-6-2002 on the following substantial questions of law
1) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act without complying the requirement of Section 12(10) of the Act?
2) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in confirming the decree under Section 12(o) of the Act without complying the requirements of Section 12(11) of the Act?
3) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in confirming the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act when there was no issue framed?
4) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in affirming the decree under Section 12(1)(a) when there was no material to sustain such decree?
3. Short facts of the case are that Respondent filed a suit for eviction against the Appellant on 18-1-1996 alleging that Respondent is owner of a house situated at Mohalla Kaddus Masjid, Ratlam bearing House No. 4, Room No. 19 Rs. 35/- per month. It was alleged that Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 18-5-1995, which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand dated 18-7-1995, which was duly received. It was alleged that the accommodation in which Appellant is in occupation is in dilapidated condition. The terrace of the suit accommodation was damaged from where water is leaking and there are number of cracks in the suit accommodation. Thus, the suit accommodation is not fit for occupation. It was alleged that Respondent intends to construct the suit accommodation for which the Respondent is having sufficient funds. It was alleged that Respondent requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for the need of his son. It was further alleged that Appellant has encroached the open land adjoining to the suit accommodation and has constructed a bathroom without the permission of the Respondent. It was alleged that Appellant has caused damage to the property of the Respondent. It was alleged that Appellant is in habit of quarrel. On the basis of these pleadings decree of eviction was prayed. The suit was contested by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that Appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation ' Rs. 35/- per month. It was also not denied that Appellant is in arrears of rent. However, so far as other grounds are concerned, plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that Respondent is entitled for decree of eviction on any of the grounds. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a), (m) and (o) of the Act, which was maintained, hence this appeal.
4. Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate appearing for Appellant, argued at length and submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that eviction was prayed by the Respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. No issue has been framed by the learned trial Court to the effect that any case is made out for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that issues framed by the trial Court whether Appellant is irregular in payment of rent and whether Appellant is in arrears of rent. It is submitted that issue No. 2 is answered in favour of the Appellant while issue No. 1 has been decided against Appellant. Learned Counsel submits that even if issue No. 1 is decided against Appellant then too no decree of eviction can be passed
