Back
S.P. Srivastava, J.
Virendra Kasliang Sharma
vs
Smt. Ramkatoridevi Wd/O
Decided on : 3 April, 1998
ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT - SECTION 23-A(B) - OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT - TENANT ESTOPPEL - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION - REBUTTAL - REVISION - SCOPE: 1. In an application Under Section 23-A(b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the landlord need not plead or prove ownership of the accommodation in dispute as a prerequisite for maintaining the application. 2. A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy, as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act. 3. Amendments to the written statement should not be allowed if they are inconsequential or mala fide attempts to prolong proceedings. 4. The bona fide requirement of the landlord must be established by evidence, but the absence of the landlord as a witness due to physical disability does not necessarily lead to an adverse inference. 5. The statutory presumption of bona fide requirement Under Section 23-D of the Act can be rebutted by the tenant, but the evidence must be credible and reliable. 6. In revision proceedings Under Section 23-E of the Act, the Court will not interfere with findings of fact unless they suffer from legal infirmity.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, Virendra Sharma, challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, on the grounds that the landlady, Smt. Ramkatori Devi, had failed to prove her ownership of the accommodation in dispute and that the application was not maintainable. The tenant also sought to amend his written statement to claim that the landlady was not the sole owner and that there had been a 'Gharu-Batwari' (private partition) between the landlady and her sons, resulting in the transfer of ownership of the accommodation to her son, Mahesh.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the landlord need not plead or prove ownership of the accommodation in dispute as a prerequisite for maintaining an application Under Section 23-A(b) of the Act. The Court also held that the tenant was estopped from denying the title of the landlady during the continuance of the tenancy, as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The Court further held that the amendments to the written statement were inconsequential and mala fide attempts to prolong proceedings. The Court also held that the landlady had established her bona fide requirement of the accommodation for her unemployed graduate son, Mahesh, who had a First Class degree in the subject of engineering in Electricals. The Court also held that the statutory presumption of bona fide requirement Under Section 23-D of the Act had not been rebutted by the tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord is required to plead and prove ownership of the accommodation in dispute in an application Under Section 23-A(b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? 2. Whether a tenant can deny the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy? 3. Whether amendments to the written statement should be allowed if they are inconsequential or mala fide attempts to prolong proceedings? 4. Whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be established by evidence? 5. Whether the absence of the landlord as a witness due to physical disability leads to an adverse inference? 6. Whether the statutory presumption of bona fide requirement Under Section 23-D of the Act can be rebutted by the tenant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The words 'if he is the owner thereof' in Clause (b) of Section 23-A of the Act do not require the landlord to plead and prove ownership of the accommodation in dispute as a prerequisite for maintaining an application for recovery of possession. 2. A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy, as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act. 3. Amendments to the written statement should not be allowed if they are inconsequential or mala fide attempts to prolong proceedings. 4. The bona fide requirement of the landlord must be established by evidence, but the absence of the landlord as a witness due to physical disability does not necessarily lead to an adverse inference. 5. The statutory presumption of bona fide requirement Under Section 23-D of the Act can be rebutted by the tenant, but the evidence must be credible and reliable.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant, upholding the eviction order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority.
S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Felling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, directing the eviction of the tenant-applicant from the accommodation in dispute within two months subject to the payment of Rs. 7,800/- towards payment of rent for a period of two years, he has now approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction Under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking redress praying for reversal of the impugned order.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the tenant-applicant and the learned counsel representing the landlady-respondent and have also carefully perused the record.
3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. An application Under Section 23-A (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed by the landlady-respondent on 25-3-1995 praying for recovery of the possession on eviction of the tenant-applicant from the accommodation in dispute which formed part of the residential house and had been let out for business purposes. The landlord has asserted that she was the owner of the accommodation in dispute which had been let out to the defendant-tenant for the non-residential purposes and was utilised by him for the said purpose for the last more than ten years. It was further asserted that the tenant defendant had closed his business which was being carried out in the shop in dispute and had started his own business in Delhi, keeping the shop in dispute under lock. The landlady claimed that the shop in dispute was genuinely and bonafidely required for establishing his son Mahesh in the business of electrical goods in the accommodation in dispute asserting that her son Mahesh, an unemployed graduate engineer was sitting idle and the Thekadari business previously being done by him had been closed and he was genuinely interested in starting his own business in the electrical goods for which purpose there was no reasonably suitable other accommodation available either to the landlady or to the son. The landlady had also asserted that the defendant-tenant was trying to hand over possession of the shop in dispute to other persons on a premium and on coming to know about his intention the landlady had sent a notice also, but neither the shop had been vacated nor a proper reply to the notice was submitted. It was further claimed that the defendant was also defaulter in the payment of rent which was lying in arrears since 1-8-1995.
4. The defendant-tenant moved an application on 19-9-1995 for permission to contest the application which was allowed. In the aforesaid application the tenant had asserted that the building of which the accommodation in dispute formed a part was owned by Battolal, the husband of the landlady, and after his death his heirs including the landlady together with his sons and daughters had become the landlords, but the application seeking recovery of possession was filed only by the widow, which was not permissible and the application is incompetent and is liable to be rejected. The defendant-tenant, however, did not dispute that he was continuing to be a tenant of the accommodation in dispute at a rent of Rs. 325/- per month. He, however, asserted that the landlady was not the only landlord and there were other co-landlords also in whose absence the proceeding was not maintainable.
5. Subsequent to the grant of permission to contest the application filed by the landlady, the defendant-tenant filed a written statement dated 31-10-1995. A perusal of this written statement indicates that the defendant-tenant accepted the landlady to be a co-landlord only and did not dispute the existence of relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the landlady. He denied that the shop was lying closed or that he had closed down his business which was being run therein. He, however, admitted that he had to go to Delhi in connection with his business with the result that off and on the
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
