Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. Pandey, J.
Bhojraj Rameshchandra & Ors.
Vs.
Ghanshyam Das Agrawal
S.A. No. 933 of 1996 (J)
Decided On: 10.09.1997
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Smt. J. Choudhary, Advocate
A tenant's denial of title in the written statement in a suit filed by a landlord personally for the bona fide requirement of himself or of a member of his family under Section 12 (1) (e) of 'the Act' or for bona fide requirement of himself or for his major son or unmarried daughter under Section 12 (1) (f) of 'the Act' cannot be said to be disclaimer of title.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - GROUNDS - DENIAL OF TITLE - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - INCONSISTENT USE OF PREMISES - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellants from the suit property, claiming that he was the landlord and the appellants were his tenants. The respondent claimed that he acquired the suit property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 3-5-1965 executed by Rajpal Goyal and Indrapal Goyal. He claimed that the suit property was let out by him to the appellants for business purpose. He claimed that appellants were liable to be evicted under Section 12 (1) (f) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act') as the respondent wanted to start his business at Raigarh and he had no alternative accommodation of his own. The second ground for eviction was based on the provisions of Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. It was claimed that the appellants had denied the title of the respondent in the written statement and consequently adversely and substantially affected the interest of the respondent/landlord and thereby furnished him a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. The respondent pleaded another set of facts which gave him a right to evict the appellants under the aforesaid section. He stated that the suit premises were let out for non-residential purpose, but the appellants used a part of it for residential purpose without the consent of the landlord/respondent and thereby did an act which was inconsistent with the purpose for which they were let in. The respondent raised a ground under Section 12 (1) (k) of 'the Act' by asserting that appellants had used the terrace as the garden and consequently coused substantial damage to the house. The respondent took the plea of non-payment of rent even after service of notice of demand as a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of 'the Act'. The last ground for eviction pleaded by the respondent was that due to heart attack, he wanted to wind-up his business at Madras and start afresh his business of iron and steel at Raigarh and he pleaded further that he had to alternative accommodation of his own at Raigarh which was suitable for business of iron and steel.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent and held that suit property was let out at the rate of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) per month by the respondent to the appellants. It held that suit property was let out for non-residential purpose and the appellants had used these premises for residential purpose without the consent of the landlord. It was held by the trial Court that the appellants had denied the title of respondent in written statement and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to a decree under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act' on both the counts (i) that the appellants had utilized the suit premises for residential purpose without obtaining any permission of the respondent and (ii) that they had denied the title of the respondent. The trial Court further held that the appellants had caused damage to the suit property by cultivating a garden on the terrace of suit property and, therefore, they liable to be evicted. The trial Court also granted decree to the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent for opening a shop and office for business. It held that the respondent did not have alternative suitable accommodation for that purpose in the town of Raigarh. The trial Court declined to grant decree under Section 12 (1) (a) of 'the Act' as that ground was not proved. In appeal, the lower appellate Court up-held the eviction decree of the trial Court on the ground under Section 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (e) of 'the Act'. It declined to accept the finding of trial Court for eviction of the appellants under Section 12 (1) (k) of 'the Act'.
Issues: 1. Whether the first appellants Court was justified in holding that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to evict the appellants/defendant on the ground of disclaimer of the title and on he ground of bona fide need for non-residential purposes ? 2. Whether the findings recorded by the two Courts below are not binding in this second appeal as the findings are based on mis-reading and are vitiated because of non-consideration of the material evidence ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to traverse the finding of the Court below regarding the denial of title of the landlord in order to raise a defence. Under such circumstances, the denial of title in the written statement in defence into a claim under Section 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (f) of 'the Act' cannot be said to be disclaimer of title. Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act' had to be read alongwith Section 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (f) of 'the Act'. It is the duty of the Court interpreting apparently conflicting provisions to harmonize them. It appears that Section 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (f) of 'the Act' are so far as they relate to the suit filed by a landlord personally for the bona fide requirement of himself or of a member of his family under Section 12 (1) (e) of 'the Act' or for bona fide requirement of himself or for his major son or unmarried daughter under Section 12 (1) (f) of 'the Act' in the nature of exception to rule created by interpreting section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act' to the effect that words 'which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of landlord therein' that a tenant's denial of title in the written statement in such a suit would be a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. If this view of the matter is not taken the tenant cannot deny the ownership of landlord if he seeks eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of himself or the members of the family mentioned in Section 12 (1) (e) of 'the Act' or under Section 12 (1) (f) of 'the Act' for himself or for his major son or unmarried daughter. It could not be intention' of the legislature to give walk over to the landlord on the point of ownership. Therefore, the plea under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act' shall not be available to respondent because the appellants denied his title by saying that the gift-deed in his favour did not pass any title to the respondent. 2. The Court held that the appellants have done 'an act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which the appellants were admitted to tenancy'. This act itself is sufficient for evicting the appellants under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. This Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the Court below on this count in the light of substantial questions of law framed by this Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This is defendants appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 8-11-1996 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh is Civil Appeal No. 2-A/95, arising out of judgment and decree dated 2-4-1992 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 65-A/85.
2. The material facts necessary for determination of this appeal are as follows. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 65-A/85 against the appellants claiming that he was the landlord of the suit property and the appellants were his tenants at the rate of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) per month. The respondent claimed that he acquired the suit property by virtue of a registered gift-deed dated 3-5-1965 executed by Rajpal Goyal and Indrapal Goyal. He claimed that the suit property was let out by him to the appellants for business purpose. He claimed that appellants were liable to be evicted under Section 12 (1) (f) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act') as the respondent wanted to start his business at Raigarh and he had no alternative accommodation of his own. The second ground for eviction was based on the provisions of Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. It was claimed that the appellants had denied the title of the respondent in the written statement and consequently adversely and substantially affected the interest of the respondent/landlord and thereby furnished him a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. The respondent pleaded another set of facts which gave him a right to evict the appellants under the aforesaid section. He stated that the suit premises were let out for non-residential purpose, but the appellants used a part of it for residential purpose without the consent of the landlord/respondent and thereby did an act which was inconsistent with the purpose for which they were let in. The respondent raised a ground under Section 12 (1) (k) of 'the Act' by asserting that appellants had used the terrace as the garden and consequently coused substantial damage to the house. The respondent took the plea of non-payment of rent even after service of notice of demand as a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of 'the Act'. The last ground for eviction pleaded by the respondent was that due to heart attack, he wanted to wind-up his business at Madras and start afresh his business of iron and steel at Raigarh and he pleaded further that he had to alternative accommodation of his own at Raigarh which was suitable for business of iron and steel.
3. The appellants in their written statement denied the grounds raised by the respondent. They denied that the premises in question were let by the respondent. They claimed that it was let out by the uncle of respondent Shrikishan. It was claimed that the respondent was not owner of the suit premises. They challenged the gift-deed in fovour of the respondent by asserting that it was invalid. It was claimed that Shrikishan was the real landlord. It was denied that the interest of the respondent was in any way adversely affected by the denial in the written statement. They denied that the suit property was used by them for any inconsistent purpose without the consent of their landlord. Shrikishan had permitted them to do so. It was denied that the respondent had let out the suit property for the purpose of business. It was claimed that the property in question was let out only for residential purpose. The appellants asserted that a small shop was opened in the ground floor of the apartment with the consent of the landlord. The respondent had no title to the suit house and, therefore, the appellants were not the tenants of the respondent. The appellants asserted further in the alternative that they had deposited the rent in the Court, therefore, they were liable to be protected. They also claimed that the respondent did not need that suit shop bona fide. He had wanted to enhance the ren
