Shakuntala Guha vs Jasmit Kaur Narula

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(MP) 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ashok Kumar Joshi, J.
Shakuntala Guha (Ku.) and others v. Jasmit Kaur Narula and others
Second Appeal No.1139 of 2005 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment and decree passed on 21.3.2005 in Civil Appeal No.59-A of 2004 by Sixth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur ; Decided on 6.2.2017.

Advocates:
Atulanand Awasthy for appellants;
R.P. Agrawal with R.K. Jaiswal for respondent No.6;
Ms. Sudipta Choubey for respondent No.17.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(n) -- decree of eviction of tenant affirmed by first appellatle Court only on ground of section 12(1)(c) -- while trial Court decreed suit on two grounds of sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) -- second appeal -- land under House No.281-A occupied by defendant included in auction sale and these findings attained finality -- present plaintiffs are owners of suit accommodation -- plaintiff's suit not time barred and defendants not perfected their title by way of adverse possession -- eviction decree passed by each lower Courts under section 12(1)(c) of Act is justified -- reliefs claimed in plaint already granted on other grounds -- no necessity to pass any other decree or order -- second appeal dismissed -- decree passed by Additional District Judge affirmed.
       Held : It is clear that the land under the house No.281-A occupied by the defendant was included in the auction sale and as these findings have attained finality, it is proved that the present plaintiffs are the owners of the suit accommodation.
       It is clear that both the lower Courts have not erred in holding that the plaintiffs’ suit was not time barred and the defendants have not perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
       Thus, it is clear that the act of original defendant and his LR’s /present appellants regarding denial of title of plaintiffs was not bonafide and thus, they are liable to be evicted under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and both the lower Courts have not committed any error in decreeing the suit on this ground.
       The reliefs claimed in the plaint have already been granted to the plaintiffs on other grounds by both of the Courts. Thus, in this second appeal there appears no necessity for any other decree or order to be passed. 1989 JLJ 223 relied on. 1993 JLJ 654, 1992(II) MPWN 29 (SC), 1980 JLJ 110, AIR 1984 Ker. 113, AIR 1993 Pat. 1, AIR 1978 Pat. 117, AIR 1977 SC 2270 and (2004)10 SCC 779 referred to.
       (2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.41 R.22 and O.41 R.33 -- respondents did not file any cross-objection under regarding ground of section 12(1)(a) of Act and permitted part of decree after receiving notice of this appeal -- provision of Order 41 rule 33 of CPC can be invoked only if any other decree or order or such further order appears necessary -- no necessity to pass any other order or decree in this appeal -- second appeal dismissed.
       Held : In this case the respondents have permitted the part of the decree passed by first appellate Court regarding dismissal of their suit on the ground of section 12(1)(a) of the above mentioned Act and not filed any cross-objection after receiving notice of this second appeal in prescribed period, in my humble opinion, it would not be proper and just to invoke the powers of Order 41 rule 33 of the CPC. (2010)10 SCC 458 followed.
       (3) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Art.67 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss.106 and 109 -- both lower Courts not erred in holding that plaintiffs suit was not time barred -- one co-owner and one co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against tenant -- where Accommodation Control Act is applicable -- there is no necessity of any notice under section 106 of Act, 1882 regarding termination of tenancy of tenant -- original defendants and LRs not attorned in favour of auction purchasers -- by operation of law respondents became landlord.
       Held : It is well established that one co-owner and one co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant.... where accommodation control Act is applicable, there is no necessity of any notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding termination of tenancy of the tenant. AIR 1977 SC 1599, AIR 2004 SC 1321 and AIR 1997 SC 2437 followed. 1980 MPLJ 1961 relied on.
        ¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½] 12¼1½¼x½ rFkk 12¼1½¼<½ & vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh dh fMdzh izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dsoy /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds vk/kkj ij vfHkiqf"V dh xbZ & tcfd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ rFkk 12¼1½¼x½ ds nks vk/kkjksa ij fMdzh fd;k x;k & f}rh; vihy izfroknh }kjk vf/kd`r x`g dz- 281&d ds v/khu Hkwfe uhykeh fodz; esa 'kkfey gS rFkk bu fu"d"kksZ us vafrerk izkIr dj yh & orZeku oknhx.k oknLFkku ds Lokeh gSa & oknhx.k dk okn le; oftZr ugha rFkk izfroknhx.k us viuk LoRo izfrdwy dCtk }kjk iw.kZ ugha fd;k & izR;sd fupys U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu ikfjr csn[kyh fMdzh U;k;kuqer gS & okn esa ftu vuqrks"kksa dk nkok fd;k x;k os igys gh vU; vk/kkjksa ij eatwj fd, tk pqds & dksbZ vU; fMdzh ;k vkns'k ikfjr djus dh vko';drk ugha & f}rh; vihy [kkfjt & vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr fMdzh vfHkiq"VA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknh }kjk vf/kd`r x`g dz- 281&d ds v/khu Hkwfe uhykeh esa 'kkfey gS rFkk bu fu"d"kksZ us vafrerk izkIr dj yhA ;g fl} gS fd orZeku oknhx.k okn vkokl ds Lokeh gSaA

       ;g Li"V gS fd fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ =qfV dkfjr ugha dh fd oknhx.k okn le; oftZr ugha Fkk rFkk izfroknhx.k us viuk LoRo izfrdwy dCtk }kjk iw.kZ ugha fd;kA

       bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd ewy izfroknh rFkk mlds fof/kd mrjkf/kdkf;ksa@orZeku vihykFkhZx.k dk oknhx.k ds LoRo ds izR;k[;ku ds laca/k esa ln~Hkkoiw.kZ ugha Fkk rFkk bl izdkj os e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu csn[ky djus ;ksX; gS rFkk fupys U;k;ky;ksa us bl vk/kkj ij okn fMdzh djus esa dksbZ =qfV dkfjr ugha dhA

       vuqrks"k ftudk okni= esa nkok fd;k x;k fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vU; vk/kkjksa ij oknhx.k dks igys gh eatwj fd, tk pqdsA bl izdkj] bl f}rh; vihy esa dksbZ vU; fMdzh ;k vkns'k ikfjr djus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA 1989 ts ,y ts 223 voyafcrA 1993 ts ,y ts 654] 1992 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 29 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] 1980 ts ,y ts 110] , vkb vkj 1984 dsjy 113] , vkb vkj 1993 iVuk 1] , vkb vkj 1978 iVuk 117] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2270 rFkk ¼2004½ 10 ,l lh 779 fufnZ"VA

       ¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu-22 rFkk vk-41 fu-33 & izR;FkhZx.k us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds vk/kkj ds laca/k esa mica/k ds v/khu dksbZ izR;k{ksi izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k rFkk bl vihy dh lwpuk izkIr djus ds i'pkr~ fMdzh dk Hkkx vuqKkr fd;k & flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 41 fu;e 33 ds mica/k dk vkJ; dsoy fy;k tk ldrk gS ;fn dksbZ vU; fMdzh ;k vkns'k ;k ,slk vkxs vkns'k vko';d izrhr gksrk gS & bl vihy esa dksbZ vU; vkns'k ;k fMdzh ikfjr djus dh vko';drk ugha & f}rh; vihy [kkfjtA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl ekeys esa izR;FkhZx.k izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk muds mijksDr mfYyf[kr dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds vk/kkj ij okn [kkfjth ds laca/k esa ikfjr fMdzh dk Hkkx vuqKkr dj pqds rFkk fofgr vof/k esa bl f}rh; vihy dh lwpuk izkIr djus ds i'pkr~ dksbZ izR;k{ksi izLrqr ugha fd;kA esjh fouez jk; esa flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 41 fu;e 33 dh 'kfDr;ksa dk vkJ; ysuk mi;qDr rFkk U;k;laxr ugha gksxkA ¼2010½ 10 ,l lh lh 458 vuqlfjrA

       ¼3½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & vuq- 67 & laifr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 106 rFkk 109 & fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa =qfV ugha dh fd oknh dk okn le; oftZr ugha Fkk & ,d lgLokeh rFkk ,d HkwLokeh vfHk/kkjh ds fo:} csn[kyh ds fy, okn izLrqr dj ldrs gSa & tgk¡ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ykxw gS & vf/kfu;e] 1882 dh /kkjk 106 ds v/khu vfHk/kkjh dh vfHk/k`fr lekIr djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk dh vko';drk ugha & ewy izfroknhx.k rFkk fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k us uhykeh dzsrk dks u;k Lokeh ugha ekuk & fof/k ds izorZu }kjk izR;FkhZx.k HkwLokeh gq,A

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd ,d lgLokeh rFkk ,d HkwLokeh vfHk/kkjh ds fo:} csn[kyh ds fy, okn izLrqr dj ldrk gS-------- tgk¡ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ykxw gS] laifr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds v/khu vfHk/kkjh dh vfHk/k`fr lekfIr ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk dh vko';drk ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1599] , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 1321 rFkk , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2437 vuqlfjrA 1980 ,e ih ,y ts 1961 voyafcrA

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal is filed by the substituted defendants under section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree passed on 21.3.2005 in Civil Appeal No.59-A/2004 by Sixth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur affirming the decree of eviction of tenant and other reliefs passed by Fifteenth Civil Judge, Class II on 7.6.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.230-A/1994 only on the ground of section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, whereas the above-mentioned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs on two grounds of section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the above-mentioned Act.

2. This appeal was admitted on 8.7.2015 on the following substantial questions of law :

“(i) Whether there was any attornment of tenancy in favour of the respondents by operation of law and the respondents became the landlord in relation to the property in suit and whether the appellants can be termed as tenant of the respondents-plaintiffs?

(ii) Whether the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs is barred by the period of limitation and whether the appellants-defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession?

(iii) Whether the appellants-defendants have rightly denied the title of the plaintiffs or the act of the defendants is bona fide, hence they are not liable to be evicted from the suit premises under the provisions of section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act?”

3. In order to get grips with the core controversy development of undisputed facts may be noticed. Disputed premises (suit accommodation) was previously part of evacuee property situated in Gorakhpur, Jabalpur. A portion of open land of property bearing diverted plots No.531 and 534 of Nazul Sheet No.293 was allotted to the original defendant (late) Shri Anil Kumar Guha on lease by the custodian from 1.9.1953 at the rate of rent of Rs.15/- per month on the condition that he could construct over it, but on receiving intimation, he would have to remove his construction within seven days. Shri A.K. Guha made some construction over it, which later on had been given Municipal House No.281-A by Municipal Corporation Jabalpur. In November, 1955 some evacuee properties including houses No.281, 281/1 to 281/22 on open plots No.534 and 531, whose previous evacuee owner was Hamid Ahmed and others were sold by Regional Settlement Commissioner of M.P. by Government auction. Sardar Amir Singh (original plaintiff No.1) and his ten other associates purchased this property in auction sale. After finalization of sale, a sale certificate dated 19.9.1963 was issued in favour of purchasers. After this auction sale, some open land previously in possession of Shri A.K. Guha was left by Shri Guha and thus, the custodian of evacuee property reduced the rent of the land leased out to Mr. Guha from June 1957 to Rs.2.50/- per month. A “deed of conveyance of building constructed on lease-hold sites sold otherwise than by public auction” executed on 4.2.1985 in favour of Shri A.K. Guha was executed in the name of President of India, under which the premium was fixed as Rs.2,507.50/-. During the pendency of the civil suit before the trial Court, all the three plaintiffs and original defendant Shri A.K. Guha expired and substituted by their legal representatives.

4. The litigation history between parties includes first eviction suit filed by Sardar Amir Singh only against Shri A.K. Guha, which was finally decided by this Court by a judgment (Ex.P-1=D-6) and decree dated 20.8.1976 passed in Second Appeal No.483/1971, whereby the suit of Amir Singh was dismissed on the ground that other co-owners were not joined in that eviction suit, but in the judgment passed by this Court, it was held that the portion occupied by Shri A.K. Guha is included in the property sold by above-mentioned auction sale to Sardar Amir Singh and his other associates. The SLP petition filed by Shri A.K. Guha against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. By an orde