Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
J.G. Chitre, J.
Radheshyam
Vs.
Sardar Preetam Singh
Second Appeal Nos. 155 and 156/92
Decided On: 02.12.1999
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: G.M. Chaphekar, Sr. Adv. and S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.L. Agrawal, Adv.
The High Court has the power to set aside concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the 1st Appellate Court when those findings are inconsistent with the evidence on record and based on a perverse interpretation of the evidence.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - SECTION 12(1)(A), 12(1)(B), 12(1)(C), 12(1)(E), 12(1)(I) OF M.P. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - INTERPRETATION - BONAFIDE NEED OF LANDLORD - ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION FOR TENANT - RENT DEFAULT - INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE - CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT - SETTING ASIDE BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant under Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(e), and 12(1)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Trial court dismissed the suit except for the claim under Section 12(1)(e), finding that the landlord had not constructed his own house and that the tenant had not defaulted on rent. The 1st Appellate Court upheld the trial court's findings and dismissed the landlord's cross-objections.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court and the 1st Appellate Court erred in their findings. It found that the landlord had proved his bonafide need for the suit house, that the tenant had alternative accommodation available, and that the tenant had defaulted on rent. The High Court allowed the landlord's appeal and decreed the suit on all counts except for the claim under Section 12(1)(b), which the landlord had abandoned.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had proved his bonafide need for the suit house? 2. Whether the tenant had alternative accommodation available? 3. Whether the tenant had defaulted on rent? 4. Whether the trial court and the 1st Appellate Court erred in their findings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the landlord had proved his bonafide need for the suit house by showing that he had been evicted from his previous residence and that he had no other suitable accommodation available. The Court rejected the argument that the landlord's need was not bonafide because he had let out a portion of the suit house to a tenant at a higher rent, finding that this was a reasonable measure taken to accommodate the landlord's guests during a family wedding. 2. The High Court held that the tenant had alternative accommodation available in the form of a plot of land owned by his wife and a house in Palsikar Colony. The Court rejected the argument that the plot of land was not suitable accommodation because it was not yet fully constructed, finding that the tenant had already begun construction and that the house in Palsikar Colony was suitable for the tenant's needs. 3. The High Court held that the tenant had defaulted on rent by failing to produce rent receipts for the period from 1980 onwards and by failing to make a complaint about the landlord's failure to provide receipts. The Court rejected the argument that the tenant had paid the rent regularly and that the landlord had failed to provide receipts, finding that the tenant's evidence was not credible.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the landlord's appeal and decreed the suit on all counts except for the claim under Section 12(1)(b), which the landlord had abandoned.
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. These appeals are hereby decided by a common judgment.
2. The matters are revolving around the same property situated in Mahesh Nagar, Indore bearing No. 5/43 consisting of three rooms and a verandah on ground floor. The landlord Radheshyam brought a suit against respondent Sardar Preetam Singh which was numbered as 96-A/80. Landlord Radheshyam prayed for decree of eviction against respondent in context with provisions of Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(i) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience). The trial Court dismissed the suit of landlord Radheshyam so far as his claim based on 12(1)(a), 12(1)(i) of the Act. Landlord had abandoned his claim for eviction in context with Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The trial Court decreed the suit of the landlord Radheshyam in context with provisions of Section 12(1)(e). Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant Sardar Preetam Singh filed an appeal in the District Court which was decided by Vth Addl. District Judge, Indore on 23-4-92 by which he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court that is 6th Civil Judge, Cl. II, Indore as well as dismissed the cross objections which were filed by the landlord in respect of challenge to the findings recorded by the trial Court in context with his claim for eviction in view of Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(e), 12(1)(i) of the Act.
3. Trial Court dismissed the contention of the landlord in respect of his claim in respect of provisions of Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(e), 12(1)(i) of the Act by holding that the defendant did not construct the house of his own in the area near Khatiwala Tank, Indore. The 1st Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court on above mentioned provisions of the Act by concurrent opinion. In addition to that it set aside the finding recorded in favour of the landlord by the trial Court in respect of his bonafide need so far as suit house is concerned. The trial Court held that the landlord was residing in rented house and during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the landlord by entering into a compromise, vacated said premise and filed the suit for evicting the defendant Sardar Preetam Singh. The trial Court further held that being the owner of the suit house, the landlord was entitled to get vacant possession of the suit house as he required it for his residence, bonafide. That resulted in granting the decree on that count in favour of the landlord. The 1st Appellate Court set aside the finding recorded by the trial Court on the count of which the suit of the landlord-plaintiff was decreed.
4. In the discussion the 1st Appellate Court concluded that though a house was constructed in the area near Khatiwala Tank by the wife of defendant Sardar Preetam Singh, it can not be tented to be a house constructed and available to the tenant for residence. It held that during the pendency of litigation once a portion of the suit house fell vacant, however, it was given to the tenant on higher rent and, therefore, the need of the landlord can not be treated to be bonafide. He pointed out that the rent of that vacant portion of the house was increased from Rs. 170/- to Rs. 200/-. The 1st Appellate Court held that this increase of the rent and non-occupation by the landlord during the pendency of the litigation was speaking against his bonafides. It held further that the house which was constructed by wife of defendant Sardar Preetam Singh can not be treated to be alternative accommodation available to the tenant. The 1st Appellate Court also held that the tenant was not in default of payment of rent because the rent was deposited per month.
5. The appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has erred in interpreting the contents of plaint Ex. P-21 and whether such interpretation has led to the failure of justice ?
(2) Wh
