Back
1981 Supreme(MP) 517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dr. T.N Singh, J.
Radha Kishan
Vs.
Bhagwan Das Choubey
S.A. No. 199 of 1986 (G)
Decided On: 15.09.1981
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. R.C. Lahoti, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. N.K. Jain, Advocate
A tenant who has been evicted for the purpose of repairs or rebuilding is entitled to be restored to possession of the accommodation after the work is completed.
Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 12(1)(H), 18 - INTERPRETATION - RIGHT OF TENANT TO BE RESTORED TO POSSESSION AFTER REPAIRS OR REBUILDING - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO PASS ORDER FOR COMPENSATION - SECTION 37(3) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was evicted from his accommodation under Section 12(1)(h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for the purpose of rebuilding. The decree directed the landlord to commence reconstruction within one month from the date of delivery of possession and to complete it within a reasonable time. The appellant delivered possession in January 1979, but the landlord failed to commence reconstruction. After four years, the appellant applied to the Executing Court under Section 18 of the Act for restoration of his possession and compensation for the period he had been out of possession. The Executing Court refused to restore possession and granted compensation. The appellant appealed, but the appellate court upheld the order of the Executing Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellant had a statutory right to be restored to possession of the accommodation after the repairs or rebuilding were completed. The Court held that the Executing Court had erred in refusing to restore possession and in granting compensation instead. The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to apply to the Executing Court under Section 37(3) of the Act to sanction necessary repairs to be carried out by him before he occupied the accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had a statutory right to be restored to possession of the accommodation after the repairs or rebuilding were completed? 2. Whether the Executing Court erred in refusing to restore possession and in granting compensation instead? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to apply to the Executing Court under Section 37(3) of the Act to sanction necessary repairs to be carried out by him before he occupied the accommodation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant had a statutory right to be restored to possession of the accommodation after the repairs or rebuilding were completed. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which provides that a tenant who has been evicted for the purpose of repairs or rebuilding is entitled to be restored to possession of the accommodation after the work is completed. 2. The Court held that the Executing Court erred in refusing to restore possession and in granting compensation instead. The Court held that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for compensation under Section 18(3) of the Act, as the appellant had exercised his option to be restored to possession of the accommodation. 3. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to apply to the Executing Court under Section 37(3) of the Act to sanction necessary repairs to be carried out by him before he occupied the accommodation. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to this relief because the landlord had failed to carry out the repairs or rebuilding as required by the decree.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the orders of the Executing Court and the appellate court. The Court directed that the landlord should restore possession of the accommodation to the appellant on or before 15-10-1987. The Court also directed that if the landlord failed to do so, the appellant could apply to the Executing Court to take proceedings under Section 37(3) of the Act and sanction necessary repairs to be carried out by him before he occupied the accommodation.
Dr. T.N Singh, J.
1. The crucial provision, of which interpretation is in issue, in this case, of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the Act, deserves to be quoted, at the outset, in exienso :
18. Recovery of possession for repairs and re-building and re-entry.-(1) In making any order on the grounds specified in clause (g) or clause (h) or sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Court shall ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the accommodation or part thereof from which he is to be evicted; and if the tenant so elects, shall record the fact of the election in the order ana specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver possession so as to enable the landlord to commence the work of repairs or building or re-building, as the case may be.
(2) If the tenant delivers possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord shall, on the completion of the work of repairs or building or rebuilding place the tenant in occu-pation of the accommodation or part thereof, as the case may be, within one month of the completion of such work.
(3) If, after the tenant has delivered possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs or re-building within one month of the specified date or fails to complete the work in a reasonable time or having completed the work, fails to place the tenant in occupation of the accommodation in accordance with sub-section (2), the Court may on an application made to it in this behalf by the tenant within such time as may be prescribed, order the landlord to place the tenant in occupation of the accommodation or part thereof or to pay to the tenant such compensation as the Court thinks fit.
2. However, it is necessary also to keep in view relevant primary pro-vision of the Act directly relatable to the right contemplated under Section 18 (3) afore-quoted. Those provisions are to be read in clause (h) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) of Section 12, but I would extract sub-section (7) at appropriate stage. What follows below is Section 12 (1) with relevant clause (h)-
12. Restriction on eviction of tenants -(1) Not with standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for has evic-tion from any accommodation except on one or more of the follow-ing grounds only, namely :
clauses (a) to (g)-not relevant......
(h) that the accommodation is required bona fide by the land-lord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated.
3. The respondent had filed a suit for appellant's eviction, which was decreed in Courts below on more than one ground. Finally, that matter was disposed of by this Court on 16-12-1978 in Second Appeal No. 41 of 1971 sustaining the order of ejectment of appellant in terms of Section 12(1)(h) of the Act, with the direction under-mentioned :
It is further directed that the plaintiff-landlord shall comme-nce reconstruction within one month from the date of delivery of possession and shall complete it within a reasonable time. Because the tenant elects to re-occupy the premises the subject-matter will thereafter be governed by the provisions of S. 18, if the plaintiff landlord fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act.
4. What is not disputed is that in January, 1979, the judgment-debtor tenant, herein the appellant, delivered possession of the suit premises in compliance with the, direction afore-quoted. After four years had passed, the decree-holder/landlord, herein the respondent, having taken no steps to commence reconstruction of the suit house, the instant appellant made an application in the Executing Court under provisions of Section 18 of the Act for restor
