Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Full Bench)
G.G. Sohani, Ag. C.J, S.S. Sharma and K. L Shrivastava, JJ.
Paraschand
Versus
Hemant Kumar
C. R. No. 1057 of 1983
Decided on : 11-11-1986
While dealing with the question of amendment to permit with drawal or addition of a ground for eviction of the tenant, on which the suit is based is a separate and distinct cause of action: it is open to the plaintiff landlord as he chooses, to relinquish one or the other of them, and to file a fresh Suit on the basis of a distinct cause of action which he may have so relinquished. Order 2, rule 2 CPC has no application for this reason. AIR 1980 SC 164 followed. [Para 7]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P)-Ss. 72 (7) (e) and (j) and 23•A-application for eviction an bona fide requirement filed before the RCA suit on other grounds may be brought in Civil Court.
Section 12 (1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment, contained different grounds, on which the landlord could file a suit LH eviction against his tenants. Section 11 (1) (e) and (f) contained grounds of bona fide requirements of the landlord, as mentioned therein. By the Amending Act of 1983, Chapter III-A was inserted, which provided the procedure with regard to eviction of tenants on grounds of bona fide requirements. Under this chapter, a landlord cannot submit an application to the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of tenants on the grounds other than the bona fide requirement, as has been dealt with under section 23-A, which was inserted in Chapter III-A by section 8 of the Amending Act of 1983 Thus, in respect to the other grounds not covered by section 23-A. the suit for eviction could well be filed in the competent Civil Court. 1984 MPWN 148 and 1984 JLJ 690 overruled. [Para 8]
(3) Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (M.P.)-Ss. 23-H (Proviso), 23-A, 23-D, 23-E and 13-eviction proceedings pending before RCA and Civil Court tenant not required to deposit rent before RCA-two eviction proceedings can he instituted.
The proviso to section 23-H is significant in the sense that this section 25- H would be attracted only when "no suit or proceeding for eviction of the tenant is pending before any Court on any of its stages in relation of the same accommodation." This mikes it further clear that where a suit or proceeding for eviction on grounds other than the bona fide requirement is pending before any Court, i.e. the Civil Court 31 any of its stages in relation to the same accommodation, Section 23-H would not be applicable i.e. to say that the tenant would not be required to make deposits etc. as requited by Section 13 of the Act, before the Rent Controlling Authority As a matter of fact, the reading of this proviso in itself makes it clear that framers of law had contemplated two separate proceedings for eviction one before the Rent Controlling Authority and the other before the Civil Court. [Para 9]
(4) Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (M.P)-S. 12 (2) -word "exclusively" as wed in this provision-meaning of The word "exclusively", as is used in sub section (2), does not refer to the Suit pending in the Civil Court, that, is to say that it does not mean that the Suit in the Civil Court has to be exclusively or the grounds of bona fide requirement but means that if the landlord wants to evict the tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirements exclusively. If the opening words of the sentence in sub-section (2) were taken to refer to the suit pending in the Civil Court, the subsequent words "may, if he bas already proceeded against the tenant under clause (e) or (f) Of sub-section (1) of section 1 of the Principle Act, as it existed before the commencement of this Act" would be wholly redundant. What sub-section (2) contemplates is that if the landlord has already proceeded against the tenant under clause(e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) of S 12 of the Act, as it existed prior to the commencement of the Amending Act of 1983, i.e. a suit has been filed by him for eviction in the Civil Court and the landlord seeks to evict the tenant exclusively on the grounds of bona fide requirement- of accommodation under section 23-A of the Act, as it stood after the amendme It, he may withdraw the Suit in relation to the said grounds with leave of the Court and proceed against the tenant in according with section 23-A of the Act as it stood after the Amending Act of 1983 1984 MPNN 148 and 1984 JLJ 690 overruled, 1985JLJ 793 approved. [Paras 10 to 12]
S. S. Sharma. J.
l. When this matter came before the learned Single Judge, he felt that the correctness of the two single Bench decisions of this Court in Nanuram v. Pundlik 1964 MPWN 148=1984 MPRCJ Note 77. and Bankimchandra Manilolji Sanghri v. Radhakishan Nandraj Sharma 1985 JLJ 793. required consideration by a larger Bench. Accordingly, honourable the Chief Justice constituted a Division Bench. The Division Bench also seems to have taken note of some more single Bench decisions of this Court on the point in question. A Division Bench decision of this Court in B. Johnson v. C.S. Naidu 1984 JLJ 690= 1984 MPLJ 480. bad also been referred to and it felt that the question, which had been referred to the Bench was not directly in issue in Johnsons case (supra). All the same, in view of the observations made therein, the Division Bench felt that to set at rest the controversy, the matter required further consideration by a still larger Bench. Accordingly, this Full Bench came to be constituted.
2. Before dealing with the question in controversy, it would be appropriate to refer to some relevant facts Respondent Hemand Kumar has filed a suit some time in the year 1976 against the present petitioner for eviction and arrears of rent, etc. The eviction of the petitioner-tenant was sought on different grounds contained in section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On an application being filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw his claim of eviction on the ground of bona-fide requirement only, with permission to proceed against the tenant in accordance with section 23-A of the Act. It is the correctness of this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner-tenant.
3. Here we may refer to the relevant amendments made in the Act. The one, with which we are directly concerned is the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (No. 27 of 1983), which admittedly had come into force. By section 2 of this Amending Act, the title M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. 41 of 1961) was substituted as under:
"An Act to provide for the regulation and control of letting and rent of accommodations, for expeditious trial of eviction cases on ground of "bona fide" requirement of landlords and generally to regulate and control eviction of tenants from accommodations and for other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto."
By section 4 of the said Amending Act, some amendments were effected even in section 12 of the Act as it then existed. Clauses (e) and (f) of sub section (1) of section 12 of the Act were omitted. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 12 of the Act also stood omitted. Then there were some other amendments also yet another amendment by Section 8 of the aforesaid Amending. Act was that after section 23 of the Act, a new Chapter-III-A with the heading "Eviction of tenants on grounds of 'bona fide' requirement" was added. Section 23-A of this Chapter III-A is as under:
"23-A. Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary. a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Auth0rity on one or more of the following grounds, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely-
(a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required 'bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.
Explanation-For the pur
SupremeToday
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
