1994 Supreme(MP) 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.R. Tiwari, J.
Daya Ram
Vs.
Smt. Seeta Bai
C.R. No. 337 of 1992 (I)
Decided On: 10.01.1994

The court held that the Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the case, that the burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the applicant, that the landlord had sufficiently pleaded the requirement for starting a business, that the applicant had not proved the existence of alternative accommodation, and that the order of eviction was sustainable on facts and circumstances.

Headnote:

M.P. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 23-A(B) - EVICTION - REQUIREMENT OF ACCOMMODATION FOR STARTING BUSINESS - BURDEN OF PROOF - PLEADING - JURISDICTION - OWNERSHIP - ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN DEPOSITING RENT - STRIKE OUT OF DEFENCE - CROSS-EXAMINATION - FINAL DECISION - REVISION PETITION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPLICABILITY OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES - ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE - ASSESSMENT OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY - JUDICIAL INTERVENTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF CASE - IMPACT ON SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS - DEATH OF LANDLORD DURING PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS - EFFECT ON VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - CONTINUATION OF SUIT - RIGHT TO SUE AND CAUSE OF ACTION - DISTINCTION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 23-G(3) OF THE ACT - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - RELEVANCE AND MATERIALITY - AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY AND WEIGHT - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - RATIONALITY AND REASONABLENESS OF LITIGATION - COSTS AND COUNSEL FEES - AWARD AND DETERMINATION - TIME GRANTED FOR VACATING TENANTED PREMISES - CONDITIONS AND UNDERTAKINGS - CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE - EXECUTION OF EVICTION ORDER - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY - CONSIDERATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES - BALANCING OF INTERESTS - AVOIDANCE OF UNDUE HARDSHIP - UPHOLDING OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a tenant, filed a revision petition challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The landlord, the original non-applicant, sought eviction for the requirement of starting a business for her major son. The applicant resisted the claim, alleging deficiency in pleading, erroneous placement of the burden of proof, and other grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the case and that the burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the applicant. The court found that the landlord had sufficiently pleaded the requirement for starting a business and that the applicant had not proved the existence of alternative accommodation. The court also rejected the applicant's contention that the order of eviction was unsustainable on facts and circumstances.

Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the case. 2. Whether the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the applicant. 3. Whether the landlord had sufficiently pleaded the requirement for starting a business. 4. Whether the applicant had proved the existence of alternative accommodation. 5. Whether the order of eviction was sustainable on facts and circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Rent Controlling Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the case, as the applicant had participated in the proceedings and allowed the case to be concluded on merits. 2. The court held that the burden of proof was not wrongly placed on the applicant, as the landlord had sufficiently pleaded the requirement for starting a business and the applicant had not proved the existence of alternative accommodation. 3. The court held that the landlord had sufficiently pleaded the requirement for starting a business, as she had clearly stated in her application that she was the owner of the tenanted premises and that she needed the accommodation for her major son to start a business. 4. The court held that the applicant had not proved the existence of alternative accommodation, as he had not provided any evidence to support his claim and had not specifically pleaded the availability of alternative accommodation in his written statement. 5. The court held that the order of eviction was sustainable on facts and circumstances, as the landlord had established the requirement for starting a business and the applicant had not proved the existence of alternative accommodation.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The court granted the applicant time till 31.3.1994 to vacate the tenanted premises and deliver its vacant possession to the non-applicants, subject to the applicant filing an undertaking on affidavit before the Rent Controlling Authority by 27.1.1994 promising to vacate and deliver vacant possession on or before 31.3.1994, not to sublet, damage or destroy the accommodation, and to deposit rent/mesne-profits up-to-date and continue to deposit at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month till delivery of possession. In the event of failure to file an undertaking or infringement of any of these conditions, the order of eviction was to become executable at once.