Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Dr. T. N. Singh, J.
LALTAPRASAD SHIVCHARANLAL
Versus
RAMCHARAN HIRALAL VUAYVARGIYA
Decided On : Aug 21,1986
It would be necessary for the landlord to bring his case within four corners of the statutory provision because, by the special law, jurisdiction is conferred on the Special Tribunal (Rent Controlling Authority) to act in the matter, contemplated under section 23-A only on the conditions precedent prescribed therein being satisfied. [Para 6
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P )-S. 23 A (a)-not only the requirement per se of landlord but bona fide nature of his requirement - be duly pleaded and proved.
It is not only the requirement per se bona fide of the landlord, of the tenanted accommodation, whether for "himself" or for "any member of his family", that invests the Authority with jurisdiction to decided and grant the application made under section 23-A (a). It is, rather, the bona fide nature of landlord's requirement which must be duly pleaded and proved, except in such cases as are legislatively otherwise provided for. [Para 6
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-S. 23-A (a) - whether premises are required for himself of for any other person-bona fide requirement of landlord should be established.
If be requires the premises "for himself" he must plead and prove only that bona fide requirement and not any alternative. Should the premises be required either for "any member of his family" or for "a person for whose benefit the accommodation is held", be should plead that case and prove his bona fide requirement in those terms.
It is made clear that the prime legal requirement is landlord's bona fide nature of his need to obtain possession of the premises. [Para 6
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-Ss. 23-D (3), 23-A (a) and 2 (e)-landlord mentioned in section 23-D-case need not be brought under second port of S. 23-A (a)-reference to S. 2 (e) is not necessary.
The legislature meant to deal with one type of cases only concerning circumstances under which a landlord was entitled to recover possession of the suit premises, "for himself". Indeed, for such a landlord the "term" "himself", because of his or her handicap (physical or economical), ex-hypothesi, acquires wider connotation to include the need of any other person on whom he or she may be required to depend and a reference in his or her case to the definition clause, section 2 (e) would not be necessary to bring the case within the ambit of second part of clause (a) of section 23-A. In virtue of sub-section (3) of section 23- D the bona fide nature of his/her requirement being statutorily recognised and burden being placed on the tenant to rebut the statutory presumption, such a landlord need not plead specific case under first or second part of clause (a), it would be sufficient for him to state generally his requirement though he or she may be required still to state that he or she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his or her own in the same city to fulfil the principal condition envisaged in clause (a) 1986 (I) MPWN 15 and 1986 MPRCJ 147 relied on. [Para 8
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S.2 (e)-terms living jointly", "dependent", "any other relation" etc.-meaning and construction of.
In a case where the landlord needs bona fide the accommodation not for his own use but pleads needs of any "member of his family" that necessity arises to circumscribe the right statutorily contemplated. If we read the term "living jointly" in juxtaposition with the sister clause following it, "or any other relation dependent on him", there could evidently be sufficient scope to take the view that the two expressions have created rights in separate classes of relations of the landlord of which the conjunction "or" is preliminarily suggestive. In other words, a person "living jointly" with the landlord need not necessarily be a person "dependent on him". If it is claimed that a person is living jointly with the landlord, the joint living itself envisaged a separate class of cases if the term "living jointly" has to carry any meaning. It must only mean that the person must be actually Jiving or residing continuously, indeed for all intent and purposes jointly, with the landlord factually exercising the right to live with the landlord jointly, envisaged under section 2 (e). This interpretation has support of the fact that while other relations "dependent" on the landlord may have a right to live jointly because of the "dependence" factor, those relations who are named in the first part of clause 2 (e) itself such as son, unmarried daughter etc" are concerned evidently with cases of persons actually living jointly because they are naturally expected to enjoy a joint. living in normal and natural circumstances under Indian social system the matter may be different in the case of "any other relation". Indeed, it must not be forgotten that the Act is a piece of beneficent social legislation. It also bears emphasis that a strict construction of the definition clause is statutorily mandated by the term "means" used in it advisedly by the legislature. [Para 9
(6) Words and Phrases- word "Jointly" means continuously, in space or time. [Para 10
(7) Words and Phrases-expression ''jointly living"-is gerundial form of verb "live" mean "to continue in life". [Para 10
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-Ss. 23-A (a) and 2 (e) landlord's son not living jointly-case of bona fide requirement not made out.
The parties went to trial on the footing that the landlord and his son. Prem Narayan, were nor living jointly. Merely because it was pleaded that Prem Narayam occasionally lived or resided with the plaintiff, would be difficult to accept, on the interpretation of the provision herein made, that a case in terms of section 2 (e) was pleaded and further that a case of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff in terms of clause (a) of section 23-A was made out. [Para 12
( 1. ) THIS is another tenant-landlord litigation whose number is increasing every day in astronomical proportion. It has focussed light on a shaded area of law requiring exposition of few important provisions of M. P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short the Act. The factual foundation of the legal contentions being built shifting sands of facts I was driven to employ my favourite technique to claim a stand on terra firma, as would facilitate instant disposal of the matter. I allowed counsel ample opportunity to make copious use of coloured pencils to mark out emphasis in pleadings and evidence, lest their respective legal contentions lose edge and acquire abscurity.
( 2. ) A rudderless ship is likely to founder in troubled waters. Indeed, the need for installing the legislative radar at the threshold, I have always considered a constitutional imperative. Accordingly, before laying out factual matrix of the case, i proceed rather to extract first the concerned legislative provisions -
"2 (e) "member of the family" in case of any person means the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, brother, unmarried sister, paternal uncle, paternal uncles wife or widow or brothers son or unmarried daughter living jointly with or any other relation dependant on him. "
"23-A. Special Provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified, in a manner provided in Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely :- (a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. " (Emphasis supplied) Indubitably the rival legal contentions agitated before me in this Court rest on interpretation of the words and expressions emphasized in the extract, in one case "living jointly" occurring in Section 2 (e); and in the other case on "required bona fide" and "himself occurring in Section 23-A (a) of the Act.
( 3. ) I extract now the relevant portions of the pleadings and evidence emphasised by counsel -
( 4. ) I revert to address myself at once to the burning controversy which has prompted counsel, indeed rightly, to advance forcefully weighty arguments on the question of interpretation. The landlord/plaintiff who has instituted before the Rent controlling Authority, for short, the Authority, the present proceedings under section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit house, having obtained an order in his favour, the decision is assailed in this revision under Section 23-E of the Act by petitioners counsel, Shri R. D. Jain, on two grounds. Firstly, counsel submits, the landlord made out a specific case for petitioners eviction in terms of Section 2 (e) of the Act, and therefore, his case could not be considered by the Authority or this Court, departing from the plaint, to give him relief. Secondly, counsel submits, on its own findings that the landlords son, Prem Narayan, was not living jointly with the plaintiff/landlord on the date of institution of the application under Section 23-A (a) of the Act, the impugned order could not have been passed for petitioners eviction. It is also Shri Jains contention that the limited right conferred on the landlord under Section 23-A (a) cannot be enlarged by this Court by judicial interpretation,
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
