Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.S. Garg, J.
Smt. Indra Kunwar Rathi
Vs.
Nanak Ram
C.R. No. 1023 of 1996 (J)
Decided On: 19.12.1997
ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT - SECTION 23-A(B) - EVICTION OF TENANT - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY - NEED OF MAJOR SON OR UNMARRIED DAUGHTER - LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO FILE SUIT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN LANDLORD AND OWNER - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 23-A(B) - SCOPE AND PURPOSE - NEED OF SON - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY - JOINT FAMILY - PRESUMPTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - BONA FIDE NEED - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF STATEMENTS - VARIANCE BETWEEN PLEADINGS AND PROOF - SCOPE OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 23-E - JURISDICTION OF REVISIONAL COURT - POWER TO INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT - CONDITIONS FOR EVICTION OF TENANT - FURNISHING OF UNDERTAKING AND SECURITY - TIMEFRAME FOR VACATING PREMISES - PAYMENT OF MESNE PROFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant/landlady filed an application under section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking eviction of the non-applicant/tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for her son's business. The Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application, holding that the applicant or her son did not have any alternative accommodation and that the need was for the partnership firm in which the son was a partner. The applicant challenged this order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Rent Controlling Authority erred in its interpretation of section 23-A(b) of the Act. The Court held that the words "if he is the owner thereof" qualify the word "landlord" and not the words "his major sons or unmarried daughters". Therefore, a landlord can file an application for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner of the property. The Court further held that the Rent Controlling Authority erred in holding that the applicant had failed to prove bona fide need. The Court found that the applicant had sufficient funds to purchase the property and that the need was for her son, who wanted to start his own independent business.
Issues: 1. Whether the words "if he is the owner thereof" in section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, qualify the word "landlord" or the words "his major sons or unmarried daughters". 2. Whether a landlord can file an application for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is not the owner of the property. 3. Whether the applicant had proved bona fide need for eviction of the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the words "if he is the owner thereof" in section 23-A(b) of the Act qualify the word "landlord" and not the words "his major sons or unmarried daughters". This interpretation is based on the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent behind the Act. 2. The Court held that a landlord can file an application for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner of the property. This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is to protect the rights of both landlords and tenants. 3. The Court held that the applicant had proved bona fide need for eviction of the tenant. The Court found that the applicant had sufficient funds to purchase the property and that the need was for her son, who wanted to start his own independent business.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises by 30.4.1998, subject to the conditions that he furnishes an unconditional undertaking and security to the satisfaction of the Rent Controlling Authority.
R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this petition under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the applicant/landlady whose application filed under section 23-A, has been rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority, has challenged the order dated 1.2.1995, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal, in case No. 85-RCA/94.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are that the plaintiff claiming herself to be the owner of the property in dispute submitted an application under section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction of the non-applicant/tenant, inter alia pleading that her son Omprakash needs the premises for carrying on his business and the applicant herself would also-co-operate with the son and would be a partner in the business. It was also pleaded that the applicant/landlady was possessed of necessary funds to carry on the business. As required by law, it was also pleaded that the applicant and/or her son Omprakash do not have any alternative accommodation of their own in their possession in the township of Bhopal for the purpose for which eviction is sought. It appears that a notice of the application was issued to the other side and some application for leave to defend was filed on 2.2.1995. It does not appear that leave to defend was granted. The records show that on 21.4.1995, written statement was filed by the present non-applicant. Thereafter, issues were cast and the parties were directed to lead evidence. At this stage, it would be necessary to observe that in view of the submission of the written statement, production of evidence by the parties would lead to a presumption that leave to defend was granted in favour of the non-applicant.
3. The applicant examined herself as P.W.1, her son for whom the need was proposed, as P.W.2 and Satanarayan, yet another son was examined to prove further facts. The non-applicant entered in the witness -box D.W.1 and also examined Rupchand, D.W.2 and Arjun, D.W.3. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned Rent Controlling Authority, holding that the applicant or her son did not have any alternative accommodation of their own in their possession for the purpose for which eviction was sought, rejected the application holding further that according to the applicant the shop was required for the business of the son, viz., Omprakash but in her statement she had categorically stated that the shop was needed for expansion of the business of M/s Rathi Bros. The Rent Controlling Authority held that the landlord can file a suit for eviction of the tenant, if the same was needed for the partnership firm. It found that the house belonged to the applicant and as the son was not the owner, such application was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. It also held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the bona fide of the need. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the applicant/landlady has filed this revision petition.
4. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Rent Controlling Authority was not justified in holding that the applicant has failed to prove bona fide or has failed to establish that the son does not need the premises for starting business. Cruising the finding recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, he contended that a stray sentence picked up from the statements of the applicant would not provide foundation to hold that the premises were needed for partnership business and not for the son exclusively. He also submitted that the R.C.A. was not justified in holding that unless the owner proves his exclusive ownership, the landlady would not be entitled to make an application for eviction of the tenant. On the other hand, contending contrary to the arguments of Shri Shrivastava, Shri Kumaresh Pathak for the non-applicant submits that a perusal of the language of section 23-A(b) of the Act would show that unless the son is the exclusive owner, the landlad
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
