Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 535
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Alok Aradhe, J.
Manisha Lalwani (Smt.) v. Dr. D.V. Paul
Writ Petition No.15483 of 2013 (Jabalpur) : against the order dated 20.8.2013, passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Sihora in
Civil Suit No.3-A/2013; Decided on 17.11.2014
Ashok Lalwani for petitioner;
S.K. Dwivedi for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.16 R.2 -- M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S.10 -- suit of eviction under provisions of the Act -- mesne profit also claimed -- application under O.16 R.2 for summoning witnesses for proving subleting and rate of market value -- application cannot be rejected on ground of benami transaction and treating mesne profit as standard rent -- provisions of section 10 of the Act not attracted -- application allowed by High Court and trial Court directed to issue summons to witnesses.
Held : The trial Court refused to summon Mrs. Shanta Paul simply on the ground that transaction in question is prohibited under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The trial Court has decided the application without perusal of the grounds mentioned in the application. In the instant case, the petitioner is claiming mesne profit and, therefore, in order to prove the prevalent market rate of the properties in the locality, summons to Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Katni ought to have been issued by the trial Court as the petitioner is entitled to mesne profits .... The trial Court has lost the sight of the fact that section 10 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case as the petitioner is not claiming standard rent. The aforesaid approach of the trial Court cannot be termed, but perverse. Thus, the impugned order suffers not only from non-application of mind but error apparent on face of the record as well. 1971 JLJ 130, 2011(2) JLJ 19, 1977 JLJ 434, AIR 1983 SC 925, AIR 1995 SC 1984, AIR 2004 Kar. 172, AIR 1965 SC 1008, (2012)6 SCC 460, AIR 1987 Orissa 179, AIR 2001 Mad. 410, (2005)1 SCC 705, (1977)4 SCC 393, AIR 1995 J & K 32, AIR 2000 Mad. 494 and AIR 1996 Kerala 1 referred to.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.12(1)(b)(i) and 10 -- applicability of -- suit for eviction and mesne profit -- provisions of section 10 not attracted. [Para 3
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.227 -- scope of powers -- if patent perversity in order of Tribunals and subordinate Courts -- gross and manifest failure of justice or principle of natural justice flouted -- interference can be made by exercise of superintendence powers. (2010)8 SCC 329 followed. [Para 6
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-16 fu-2 && e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 10 && vf/kfu;e ds mica/kks ds v/khu csn[kyh dk okn && var%dkyhu ykHk dk Hkh nkok fd;k x;k && miHkkM+snkjh vkSj cktkj ewY; lkfcr djus ds fy, lkf{k;ksa dks vkgwr djus ds fy, vk-16 fu-2 ds v/khu vkosnu && csukeh laO;ogkj ds vk/kkj ij vkSj vr%dkyhu ykHk dks ekud HkkM+k ds :Ik es ekudj [kkfjt ugh fd;k tk ldrk && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ds mica/k vkdf”kZr ugh gksrs && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;k vkSj lkf{k;ksa dks leu tkjh djus dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks funsZ’k fn;k x;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Jherh ‘kkark ikWy dks leu djus ls ek= bl vk/kkj ij badkj fd;k x;k fd iz’uxr laO;ogkj csukeh laO;ogkj ¼izfr”ks/k½ vf/kfu;e] 1988 ds v/khu izfrf”k) laO;ogkj gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vkosnu esa mfYyf[kr vk/kkjks dks voyksdu fd, fcuk vkosnu fofu’pr fd;k gSA bl izdj.k esa] ;kph var%dkyhu ykHk dk nkok dj jgk gS vkSj] blfy,] fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ifj{ks= esa izpfyr cktkj nj lkfcr djus ds vuqØe esa ‘kk[kk izca/kd] vka/kzk cSad] dVuh dks leu tkjh fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk D;ksfd ;kph var%dkyhu ykHk dk gdnkj gSA ----- fopkj.k U;k;ky; us bl RkF; dks n`f”V vks>y fd;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 izdj.k ds rF;ks ls ykxw ugh gksrh D;ksafd ;kph ekud HkkM+s dk nkok ugh dj jgk gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh mi;qZDr igq¡p ikfjHkkf”kd ‘kCn ugh gks ldrh] ysfdu foi;ZLRk gSA bl dkj.k vk{ksfir vkns’k us dsoy euksfu;ksx dk iz;ksx us djus ls xzflr gS fdraq vfHkys[k ls nf’kZr izR;{kn’khZ =qfV Hkh gSA 1971 ts ,y ts 130] 2011¼2½ ts ,y ts 19] 1977 ts ,y ts 434] , vkb 1983 ,l lh 925] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1984] , vkb vkj 2004 dukZ- 172] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1008] ¼2012½6 ,l lh lh 460] , vkb vkj 1987 mM+hlk 179] , vkb vkj 2001 enzkl 410] ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 705] ¼1977½4 ,l lh lh 393] , vkb vkj 1995 tEew rFkk d’ehj 32] , vkb vkj 2000 enzkl 494 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 dsjy 1 fufnZ”VA
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼[k½¼>½ rFkk 10 && dk ykxw gksuk && csn[kyh rFkk vr%dkyhu ykHk ds fy, nkok && /kkjk 10 ds mica/k vkdf”kZr ugh gksrsA ¼iSjk 9
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-227 && ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && ;fn vf/kdj.kksa vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns’kksa esa isVsaV foi;ZLrrk gks && ldy vkSj izdV U;k; dk u gks ikuk ;k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dh voKk && v/kh{k.k ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSaA ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 329 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6
1. In the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.8.2013 by which the trial Court has partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Order 16 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner filed the suit for eviction on the ground enumerated under section 12(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The petitioner has also prayed for grant of mesne profit. The respondent in the written statement denied the claim and in particular grounds enumerated under section 12(1)(b) and (i) of the Act. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11 rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 6.4.2014 by which the respondent was directed either to disclose the details of the accommodation acquired in Roshan Nagar, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward or file an affidavit. In response to the aforesaid order, the respondent filed the affidavit. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 to produce the record of the Municipal Corporation in respect of the aforesaid accommodation which was allowed by the trial Court.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 16 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the petitioner wanted to examine the witnesses, namely, Income-Tax Officer, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni, Smt. Shanta Paul and Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Katni. The respondent filed reply to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayer. The trial Court vide order dated 20.8.2013 partly allowed the application preferred by the petitioner and permitted issuance of summons to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner has confined his challenge to the impugned order in so far as it rejects the prayer for summoning Smt. Shanta Paul and Branch Manager, Andhra Bank. It is further submitted that impugned order suffers from apparent error on the face of record inasmuch as the petitioner wanted to examine Smt. Shanta Paul in order to prove the grounds enumerated under sections 12(1)(b) and (i) of the Act. However, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that benami transaction is prohibited under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is also submitted that similarly the trial Court committed grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for summoning the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank on the ground that the plaintiff can approach the Rent Controlling Authority under section 10 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. It ought to have appreciated that the petitioner has not claimed standard rent but mesne profit. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and others [AIR 1983 SC 925], Lalitha J. Rai v. Aithappa Rai [AIR 1995 SC 1984], Rehman Hussain v. Althaf Hussain [AIR 2004 Kar. 172], Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and others [AIR 1965 SC 1008], Smt. Yasodamma and another v. Inderchand Vimalchand Jain and another [AIR Kar. 100], Shyamacharan Raghubar Prasad Tiwari v. Sheojee Bhai Jairam Chattri and another [1971 JLJ 130=AIR 1971 M.P. 120], Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh and others [(2012)6 SCC 460], Achutananda Sahoo v. Dhruba Ch. Sahoo and others [AIR 1987 Orissa 179], Jagdish Babu Raijaada v. Sanval Das Gupta [2011(2) JLJ 19=2011(2) MPLJ 381], and V.K. Periasamy v. D. Rajan [AIR 2001 Madras 410].
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the statute in question, namely, the Act provides remedy to the petitioner for fixation of standard rent and, therefore, the trial Cour
