Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 565
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
C.V. Sirpurkar, J.
Umadatt Mishra - Appellant
Versus
Vidyashankar Mehta - Respondent
CR-89-2015
Decided On : 30-06-2015
For the Petitioner: M.K. Agrawal.
The determination of the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and the question of limitation must be based on the statements in the plaint and are to be decided at trial.
Headnote:
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Eviction Suit - Section 12 (1) (a) (c) (e) - Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Kamlesh Babu Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma, : AIR 2008 SC (supplementary) 1931, Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa., : AIR 2008 SC 3174, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners and Parties Vessel M.V., Fortune Express & Ors., : AIR 2006 SC 1828, Exphar SA and Another Vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and Anr., : AIR 2004 SC 1682, Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, : 2005 SCC (7) 510, Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh, : AIR 2012 SC 3023, Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, : AIR 2012 SC 3912
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent under Section 12 (1) (a) (c) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC claiming no landlord-tenant relationship and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11, stating that the existence of landlord-tenant relationship is a question of fact to be decided at trial. The revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court.
Issues: Existence of landlord-tenant relationship, limitation, and valuation of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The suit cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 based on allegations in the written statement. The question of limitation must be determined from the statements in the plaint. The existence of landlord-tenant relationship is a question of fact to be decided at trial.
Final Decision: The civil revision was dismissed by the High Court.
C.V. Sirpurkar, J.
1. Heard on admission.
2. This revision is directed against order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Court of 3 rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in civil suit No. 74A/2014 whereby the application filed by defendant/revision petitioner Umadatt Mishra under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition may be summarized as here under: Plaintiff/respondent Vidyashankar Mehta filed a civil suit before the trial Court for eviction of defendant/revision petitioner from the suit premises and arrears of rent on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a) (c) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises were purchased by the parents of plaintiff Vidyashankar Mehta from one Kashi Prasad Shrivastava by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.01.1971. The plaintiff lived in the suit premises with his family till the year, 2005. On 15.10.2005, the suit premises were given on monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the defendant/petitioner. After about 9 years, suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed on the grounds as aforesaid.
4. The defendant/revision petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. As such, provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not attracted to the case. The suit basically is for obtaining possession of the suit property from the defendant. The defendant has been in legal possession of the suit property from the year, 1991 in full knowledge of the plaintiff and this civil suit has been filed after a period of 25 years. As such, it is barred by law of limitation. As per the Collector guidelines market value of the property is about Rs. 46,50,000/-. Since the suit is for delivery of possession, the plaintiff ought to value the suit at Rs. 46,50,000/- and pay the Court fee of Rs.5,58,000/- thereon. It has been prayed that civil suit is barred by limitation and is also liable to be dismissed because it was not properly valued and adequate Court fee was not paid thereon.
5. Learned trial Court observed that the suit has been filed under the provision of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and it has been properly valued and adequate Court fee has been paid thereon. It has further observed that whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and defendant, is a question of fact to be decided at the trial; therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11of the CPC was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.11.2014.
6. The impugned order has been assailed in this revision petition on the ground that no rent-note or rent receipts have been filed; therefore, the plaintiff absolutely failed to establish the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. The burden was upon the plaintiff to demonstrate prima facie, the existence of the relationship. Plaintiff having failed in doing so, learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
7. Having perused the documents available on record and considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court is of the view that this civil revision is liable to be dismissed in limine for the reasons hereinafter stated:
So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Babu Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma, : AIR 2008 SC (supplementary) 1931 that a plaint may be rejected only where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law of limitation. In the instant case the suit does not appear to be barred by law of limitation from the statements made in the plaint.
8. It has further been held in a catena of decisions, namely; Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa., : AIR 2008 SC 3174, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners and Parties Vessel M
