Back
S.P. Srivastava, J.
Manorama Devi Wd/O Parmanand And ...
vs
Suresh S/O Kailash Narain And Ors.
Decided on : 28 November, 1998
MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 12(1)(A), (C), (O) AND 13(2) - EVICTION OF TENANT - RATE OF RENT - OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD EVIDENCE - SECTION 12(11) - RELIEF TO TENANT - GENUINENESS OF RECEIPT - FINDINGS OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant-appellants challenged the decree of eviction passed against them on the grounds of non-payment of rent, unauthorized occupation, and encroachment. They argued that they were not given an opportunity to lead evidence regarding the rate of rent, that the court failed to consider the provisions of Section 12(11) of the Act, and that the genuineness of a receipt was not established through expert evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendants were not entitled to lead evidence regarding the rate of rent since their defense against eviction had been struck out. The court also held that the provisions of Section 12(11) of the Act were not applicable since the decree for eviction was based on grounds other than unauthorized occupation. Finally, the court held that the genuineness of the receipt was established based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were entitled to lead evidence regarding the rate of rent after their defense against eviction had been struck out? 2. Whether the court erred in not considering the provisions of Section 12(11) of the Act? 3. Whether the genuineness of the receipt was established through expert evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to lead evidence regarding the rate of rent since their defense against eviction had been struck out under Section 13(6) of the Act. The court reasoned that the striking out of the defense meant that the material facts forming the basis of the defense were deemed to be absent and could not be relied upon. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 12(11) of the Act were not applicable since the decree for eviction was based on grounds other than unauthorized occupation. The court explained that Section 12(11) provides relief to a tenant who vacates the encroached portion and pays compensation to the landlord, but this relief is only available if the eviction is solely based on the ground of unauthorized occupation. 3. The court held that the genuineness of the receipt was established based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the absence of any pleading in the written statement suggesting that the receipt was forged or fictitious.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no merit in the arguments raised by the appellants.
S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant-appellants.
2. Perused the record.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate Court dated 20-4-1998, dismissing their appeal and confirming the decree of the trial Court for their eviction from the accommodation in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, the tenant-appellants have now approached this Court in second appeal seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned decree.
4. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed by Kailash Narain and Padamchand Jain against Paramanand on 18-11-1981. During the pendency of the suit, both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant expired and their heirs and legal representatives were brought on the record.
5. The suit had been filed seeking a decree for eviction on the grounds envisaged under Section 12(l)(a), (c) and (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
6. The defendant, Paramanand had filed his written statement on 10-9-1982, denying the plaint allegations including the rate of rent asserting that the requisite conditions contemplated under Section 12(l)(a), (c) and (o) of the Act, could not be deemed to have been satisfied or established.
7. Since a dispute had been raised in regard to the rate of rent, in the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 4-8-1989, fixed a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation to be Rs. 100/- per month which was required to be deposited in the Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, till the decision of the suit or appeal.
8. The aforesaid order was not complied with by the defendant, and on 6-3-1995, after hearing the parties, the trial Court passed an order striking out of the defence against eviction put in by the defendant.
9. The plaintiffs led evidence in support of their case. In their oral evidence, they examined Suresh Jain as P.W. 1, who was allowed to be cross- examined by the defendant.
10. The order sheet maintained by the trial Court dated 15-10- 1996, indicates that during the course of cross-examination, the defendant wanted to cross-examine the plaintiff on the aspects in respect whereof his defence had been struck out.
11. The trial Court in its order of the aforesaid date indicated that the defendant had been allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff in extenso but so far as the grounds of eviction were concerned, in the absence of pleadings, there could be no occasion for cross-examination of the plaintiff in support of the defence set up in the written statement which had been struck out.
12. The defendant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the plaintiffs.
13. The trial Court on a careful consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had been able to establish the requisite conditions envisaged under Section 12(l)(a), (c) and (o) of the Act, and were entitled to a decree for eviction as claimed. It was also found that the defendant was liable to pay damages for use and occupation in respect of that portion of the building which had been taken possession of by them in an unauthorised manner and amounted to an illegal encroachment, at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of the possession thereof to the plaintiffs.
14. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent pendente lite and future was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed.
15. The trial Court further provided that the defendant was entitled to the adjustment of Rs. 3,000/- towards repairs of the accommodation in dispute as against the amount of rent already deposited by him in the Court.
16. The defendant/tenants challenged the decree of the trial Court in first appeal.
17. The first App
AI
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
