Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U. N. Bhachawat, J.
Radheylal
Vs.
Ratansingh
S. A. No 3 of 1971 against decree passed by Shri B.L. Agrawal, District Judge, Guna confirming the decree passed by Shri Ravi Verma, Civil Judge, Class II, Guna;
Decided on : 4-1-1977
The immunity from the operation of the Act contained in section 3(1)(b) is in respect of the premises and is not with respect to the parties to the contract of tenancy; If the premises belong to a local authority, the Act is not applicable to such premises, even if the person letting it out is a private person. AIR 1953 SC 16 relied on. [Para 9]
That together with the premises, the landlord also gave some utensils and the rent also included, the hire for utensils will make no difference for operation of section 3(1)(b) if the premises belong to a local body. [Para 12]
(2) Landlord and tenant - suit for ejectment - tenant must deliver possession to the landlord - he cannot avoid handing over possession on the ground that he has entered into contract with a person having paramount title.
(3) Transfer of Property Act. 1882 - S. 108 (q) - suit for possession by landlord- tenant cannot set up the plea of entering into contract of tenancy to a person holding paramount title.
In a suit between the landlord and tenant for possession on determination of tenancy, the tenant is bound to hand over possession to the landlord. He cannot escape from his obligation of delivering possession to his landlord by contending that be has entered into a contract of tenancy with a person who has paramount title over his landlord. Section 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act, clearly indicates that the tenant is bound to put his landlord into possession of the property, which was taken on rent by him and he cannot escape from this obligation by voluntarily entering into contract with a person from whom his lessor was holding the lease. 33 MPLC 316, 1968 ILJ 688 relied on. 1970 JLJ 943 distinguished. [Para 15]
(4) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - S. 52 - lis pendence-suit filed by landlord for possession against tenant - during pendency of suit tenant transfering possession to person having paramount title-transfer hit by doctrine of lis pendence.
While a suit for possession was pending between the landlord and tenant, the tenant entered into a contract of tenancy with the person having a paramount title (Municipality).
Held: The alleged contract of tenancy between the defendant and the Municipality during the pendency of the suit even if accepted to be true, it amounts to transfer of possession by the defendant to the Municipality and as such would be hit by the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and is not binding on the plaintiff. 1968 JLJ 688, relied on. [Para 17]
(5) Civil P.C. 1908 - O. 1, R. 10 - suit between landlord and tenant- person having paramount title is not a necessary party to the suit-question of necessary party.
The suit between the parties is based on the contract of tenancy and the plaintiff-landlord is seeking possession on determination of the lease of the suit premises. Merely because the defendant has set up a plea of justertii in his defence, the Municipality would not become a necessary party. The plaintiff claims no relief against Municipality, nor it is a case where in absence of the Municipality, the controversy between the parties cannot be decided. The Municipality may at the most, in view of the case set up by the defendant, be an important witness in support of his defence, but not a necessary party. The question of necessary party has necessarily to be decided with reference to the avernments made in the plaint and the question in controversy. [Para 18]
Bhachawat, J. –
1. This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10th November 1970 passed by the District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No. 21-A of 1961 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30th July 1976 by the Civil Judge Class II Guna in Civil Suit No. 34-A of 1964 where by he decreed the plaintiff respondent's suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,578/- being the amount of arrears of rent/hire charges and mesne profits.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are these: The suit premises, which are admittedly owned by the Municipality Guna, were on 21-11-60 taken on rent by the plaintiff, they were let out by the plaintiff to defendant as also some utensils and other articles of the hotel were given on hire at the time of letting out and the composite amount agreed to be paid by the derendant to the plaintiff was Rs. 90/- p.m. in respect of the rent as well as the hire charges of the utensils.
3. The plaintiff by his notice dated 30-1-63 determined the tenancy of the defendant and made a demand for the arrears of rent/hire charges. The defendant having failed to vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrears, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant while admitting that the suit premises were initially let out to him by the plaintiff interalia contended that according to the rules of the Municipality, the plaintiff was not competent to sublet the suit premises; that the plaintiff had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent due to the Municipality; that a dispute was going on between the plaintiff and the Municipality and that the defendant had applied to the Municipality for grant of lease to him of the suit premises on his paying full arrears of rent and the Municipality had agreed to do so and as much the defendant had become tenant of the Municipality since about the year 1962.
4. The defendant also pleaded payment of arrears of rent/hire charges and thus controverted the right of the plaintiff to eject him and claim the suit amount from him. He also contended that the suit of the plaintiff suffered from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party as according to him the Municipality Guna was a necessary party.
5. During the course of the trial the order of the President of the Municipality dated 20-1-66 (Ex. D. 7) was produced whereby the suit premises were allotted to the defendant. This order reads as under :-
^^eqrkfcd fjiksVZ lhŒ ,eŒ vkSŒ 21-8-65 ds jk/ksyky ds uke ,ykV dh tkos fu;ekuqlkj fdjk;kukek fy[kk tkos vkSj tSls Bsyksaokyks dh fd’r dh gS mlds eqrkfcd vkjŒ vksŒ fd’r djsA^^
gLrk{kj % Jh ;’koUrjkoth lkgc] lHkkifr
fnukad 20-1-66
The contentions of the defendant did not find favour with both the Courts below and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and that decree was maintained by the lower appellate Court. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions before this Court, viz (1) that the Accommodation Control Act hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' applies to the present suit and the question of ejectment should have been examined in the light of the provisions of that Act as to whether a ground for ejectment under that Act was made out by the plaintiff or not; and (2) that the Municipality was a necessary party, which having not been joined, the suit should have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned counsel also disputed the amount decreed by way of arrears of mesne profits against the defendant.
7. As regards the amount of arrears and mesne profits, an agreed submission has been made by the learned counsel for both the parties that the amount due and payable by the defendant by way of arre1rs of rent and/or mesne profits upto the date of suit was Rs. 1200/- and not Rs. 1.578/- as found by the Court below. In view of this agreed submission on the question of amount due, this Court is not required to dialate on the question as to what was
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
