Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
U.N. BHACHAWAT & R.C. SHRIVASTAVA, JJ
Chironjilal Phulchand and another
Versus
Ghanshyam Das Sharma and others
Second Appeal No.242 of 1981
Decided On: 22.04.1983
The Court is competent in a suit for possession of immoveable property to pass a decree for possession of the property; for the rents. or for the mesne profits, as the case may be, upto the date of the suit and can direct an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holders To put it in other words, in a suit for recovery of possession of property with future rent or mesne profits. A decree for rent from the date of suit to the date of decree can be given on decreeing recovery of tae property. The question then that arises is; can this order and the rule be interpreted to mean that no like decree for rent from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of decree can be given and disallowing recovery of possession of the property. It is a clear position that there is no rule in the Code of Civil Procedure, nor my other law has been brought to our notice, which requires the Court to refuse a decree for rent from the date of the suit till the date of decree, claimed in a suit for recovery of property whenever recovery of property is disallowed.
From a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court, it is deductible that O. 20 R. 13 does not prohibit the passing of such a decree. AIR 1977 S. C. 129 followed. [Para 5 and 6
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-Ss. 2 (i) and 12 - status of tenant during pendency of eviction suit-not offected he remains as tenant and owes obligation to pay rent to his landlord.
Even during the pendency of the suit the status of the defendant - appellant had been that of a tenant As a corollary to this, it follows that the tenant-defendant owes the obligation to pay the rent to his landlord-plaintiff. 1980 JLJ 1 (S.C.) and 1978. JLJ I (S.C.) followed. (Para 7
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S.13(1) - tenant is under obligation to pay rent during pendency of suit-separate suit not necessary. 1967 JLJ 31 relied on. [ Para 9
(4 Equity-suit for eviction dismissed-decree for rent from date of suit till date of decree can be granted.
(5) Civil P.C. 1908 - S.151 - suit for eviction dismissed-Court can grant decree for pendente lite rent.
No one can predict the time for the final disposal of the suit, so a situation may arise that on the date when the Suit is finaly decided refusing the decree for ejectment against the tenant, rent for a period beyond 3 years preceding the date of that decree would become barred by time, as the cause of action for the suit for recovery of rent arises on the date it falls due for payment and, therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to get that rent for no fault of his. The defendant-tenant, who can successfully prolong the case for a longer period, would get the premium in the shape of residing as a tenant without payment of rent for a period for which its recovery has become barred by time during the pendency of the suit, which is against the rule of justice, equity and good conscience. It 'Cannot be gainsaid that a tenant owes an obligation to pay rent on the date it accrues, so during the pendeney of the suit that obligation continues. The cause of action accrues to the plaintiff-landlord during the pendency of the suit for the rent accruing during that period. In such a situation in absence of any prohibition in the Code, and the right having accrued to the plaintiff. the Court has to meet the ends of justice for enforcing the right of the plaintiff ex debito justitiae also. Under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can grant a decree for pendente lite rent while dismissing the suit for ejectment. 1971 JLJ 102 overruled, S.A. No. 190 of 1960 of - 20-9-1976 Confirmed. (Para 11)
U. N. Bhachawat, J
The matter has come up before us on a reference of the following question by Single Bench:-
Whether in a suit for ejectment, the Court is competent to grant a decree for rent from the date of the suit till the date of decree, while dismissing the suit for ejectment ?
The facts leading to the present reference essential for giving our opinion are these:
The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the defendants, out of whom two are the appellants, viz., defendants No. 5 and 6, in this appeal, for ejectment, arrears of rent, electric charges and mesne profits from the date of the suit till the delivery of possession. The suit was filed on the basis of contract of tenancy. The ejectment was sought on various grounds including the ground under 12(1)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which need not be enumerated here. The two courts below, i.e., the trial court as well as the first appellate court, found that only defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are the tenants and that no ground for ejectment under the Act was made out. The trial court had, thus, dismissed the suit for ejectment and for mesne profits against all the defendants, and decreed the suit for arrears of rent from June 1967 to 30th November 1969 and for electric charges of Rs. 49.50 p. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by this had preferred an appeal against the partial dismissal of his suit by the trial court, as indicated hereinabove. The lower appellate court modified the decree of the trial court, inasmuch as, while maintaining the decree of the trial court in all other respects, it decreed the claim of the plaintiff for arrears of rent from the date of the suit till the date of decree also. In other words, the ultimate decree is that the suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed in to against defendants Nos. 1 to 4; decreed for arrears of rent upto the date of the suit as also for the rent accrued during the pendency of the suit upto the date of decree, and for electric charges Rs. 49-50 p. against defendants Nos. 5 and 6, the present appellants. The appellants have, thus, filed the present appeal in which the question stated hereinabove in paragraph 1 has arisen and been referred for the opinion of this Bench.
There is a conflict in the views of the two Single Bench decisions of this court on the above question. In Shankar Sahai v. Kanmal and others 1971 MPLJ 436 : 1971 JLJ 102, the view taken is as under :-
There is yet another ground on which the decree of the court below must be set aside. As said above, although the suit was initially both for ejectment and arrears of rent the decree was passed only for arrears of rent and the suit for ejectment was dismissed because the plaintiff was held to have no right to ejectment after June 4, 1957. That being the position the plaintiff could not get a decree in this suit for rent for any period after the date of the suit. It is plain enough that in a suit for arrears of rent a decree can be passed only for the rent which has accrued due upto the date of the suit. No decree can be passed for future rent accruing from the date of the suit, and not even during the pendency of the suit. Here the suit was instituted on January 28, 1957, but the decree has been passed for rent from June 4, 1957 to October 31, 1963. This decree is contrary to law.
The view taken in Rani Premkumari and others v. Ramnath S.A. No.190 of 1969, decided on 20-9-1976, is as under:-
As regards the claim for rent upto the date of the suit and thereafter, admittedly the plaintiffs in the plaint had claimed rent upto the date of the suit at the rate of Rs. 18 per month. They had also claimed rent from the date of the suit till delivery of possession. The learned courts below disallowed the claim for rent from the date of the suit on the ground that they had claimed rent and not mesne profits, and therefore, mesne profits could not be decreed. Apart from the techn
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
