Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Appellants: Ranjitnarayan Brijnarayan Haksar
Vs.
Respondent: Surendra Melaram Verma
Civil Rev. No. 1162 of 1996
Decided On: 11.08.1999
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.L. Pavecha, Sr. Counsel and Mithal, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.C. Bagadiya, Sr. Counsel and Chhabra, Adv.
The eldest son and Karta of the family of a deceased tenant is the proper party to be sued in an application for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - APPLICANT LANDLORD'S CLAIM FOR EVICTION OF TENANT FROM SUIT SHOP FOR ESTABLISHING OFFICE OF HIS MAJOR SON, AN ADVOCATE - APPLICANT'S NEED FOR SUIT ACCOMMODATION PROVED - FINDING OF RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY REJECTING APPLICANT'S CLAIM FOR EVICTION SET ASIDE - APPLICATION FOR EVICTION ALLOWED - TENANT DIRECTED TO DELIVER VACANT POSSESSION OF SUIT SHOP TO APPLICANT WITHIN THREE MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
Applicant landlord, a retired servant of MPSRTC, filed an application under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking eviction of the respondent tenant from the suit shop for establishing the office of his major son, an Advocate. The Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application on the grounds that the application against the non-applicant alone was not maintainable and that the need alleged by the applicant was not genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Rent Controlling Authority erred in rejecting the application on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the non-applicant, being the eldest son and Karta of the family of the deceased tenant, was the proper party to be sued. The Court also held that the Rent Controlling Authority erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the need alleged by the applicant was not genuine, as the applicant had established his need for the suit accommodation for the purpose of establishing the office of his son, an Advocate.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for eviction against the non-applicant alone was maintainable? 2. Whether the need alleged by the applicant was genuine?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the application for eviction against the non-applicant alone was maintainable, as the non-applicant, being the eldest son and Karta of the family of the deceased tenant, was the proper party to be sued. The Court relied on the decisions of this Court in Shambhudayal v. Suleman and H. C. Pandey v. G. C. Paul, as well as the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Vijaylaxmi Printing Press v. Nandulal Shankar and Ors., to support its holding. 2. The Court held that the need alleged by the applicant was genuine, as the applicant had established his need for the suit accommodation for the purpose of establishing the office of his son, an Advocate. The Court relied on the decisions of this Court in M/s Bhoolchand and Anr. v. M/s Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr., Smt. Indra Kunwar Rathi v. Nanak Ram, and Gulam Hyder Ali v. Smt. Arifa Bano, to support its holding.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the Rent Controlling Authority. The Court directed the non-applicant to deliver vacant possession of the suit shop to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of the order.
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. UNSUCCESSFUL applicant, a landlord has directed this Revision under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 15-11-1996 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A-90/7/52/86-87, thereby rejecting the application filed by the applicant against the respondent for his eviction from the suit accommodation on the ground of requirement of the said accommodation for establishing the office of his major son, an Advocate.
2. This is one more Us between landlord and tenant in which the landlord is contesting his claim for eviction against the tenant since 1985. Period of this enormity is prone to cause frustration in the minds of both the sides. After all, how long legal battle should continue? Legal justice should not be allowed to become a teasing illusion or promise of unreality. When litigation goes on and on, it is time that litigants learnt three percepts; "To live honorably, not to injure another, to render each his due". The object of law is to render each his due and to establish harmony, not antimony, with justice. {Extracted from Badamilal v. Chandraprakash and Ors..)
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant is the owner of a double storied house situated at 1/2, Parsi Mohalla, Indore. The applicant is a retired servant of M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. On the ground floor of this house there are six shops and a garrage. First floor of the house is entirely residential and is used for the residence of the family members of the applicant. Out of the six shops located on the ground floor of the said house, one shop consisting of two rooms was given in possession to the opponent's father Melaram on a monthly rent of Rs. 78/- in the year 1954. The said Melaram died in the year 1976 leaving behind opponent, the elder son, three daughters, widow and a younger son as his heirs. After the death of Melaram, the suit shop is in occupation of the heirs of the deceased tenant Melaram and doing their family business through the non-applicant who is the 'Karta' of the said family.
4. The applicant filed a Civil suit in the year 1985 in the Court of IVth Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore for eviction of the heirs of deceased tenant Melaram on the ground that the applicant requires the suit accommodation for starting the clinic of his major son Dr. Sudhir. On coming into force of the M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment Ordinance 1985) effective from 16-1-1985, entitling the landlord of the categories specified in Section 23-J, the applicant withdrew the aforesaid suit from the Civil Court on 22-1-1987 and filed an application under Section 23-A of the amended provisions before the Rent Controlling Authority Indore on the ground that the suit accommodation is required bona fide, by the applicant for the purpose of running a typing shop of his younger son Randhir and for this purpose the applicant has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own. During the pendency of the application, the applicant's said son Randhir has become Lawyer and the application was amended with the averments that the suit accommodation is required by the applicant for the purpose of establishing the office of his son Randhir who become Advocate.
5. The opponent, on service of notice of the aforesaid application, filed an application for Leave to defend on various grounds as contemplated under Section 23-"C" of the Act. In the said application supported by an affidavit, the non-applicant stated that after the death of his father Melaram he is carrying on the business in the suit accommodation for and on behalf of his joint family being the eldest son of deceased tenant Melaram. On grant of Leave to defend, opponent filed the written statement raising various pleas such as; that the applicant is not a landlord of the categories specified under Section 23-J of the Act. The petition for eviction against the opponent alone without
