Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dwarkadhish Bansal, J.
Abhishek Pathak (Shri) v. Ramkrishna Mahod & Others
Second Appeal No. 23 of 2004 (Jabalpur): against the
judgment and decree dated 29.9.2003 passed by the District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/2003;
Decided on 31.10.2022
(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- S. 12 (1) (o) -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- second appeal against decree of eviction -- defendant/appellant alleged that plaintiff got blank stamp signed from her under compulsion/pressure, which has been used by plaintiff to prepare agreement of tenancy for only two rooms -- she is in possession of three rooms since prior to execution of agreement therefore she has not taken possession of one room forcibly -- held -- Courts below not only considered written agreement of tenancy, but also considered oral evidence of parties -- disbelieved statement of defendant -- clearly held that agreement was executed by defendant herself -- rightly held that defendant has illegally taken possession of another room -- considered and well-reasoned concurrent finding of fact regarding encroachment over one room -- no illegality committed by Courts below. [Paras 11 to 13
(2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S. 12 (1) (e) -- framing of additional substantial question of law -- substantial question of law regarding bona fide requirement not proposed in memo of second appeal -- Court also did not frame substantial question of law in that regard -- held -- findings recorded on question of bona fide requirement do not give rise to any substantial question of law -- framing of additional substantial question of law declined. AIR 2000 SC 534 followed. 2017 (3) JLJ 375 relied on. [Paras 14 & 15
(3) Execution -- execution of decree of eviction -- decree of eviction passed even on one ground of eviction is as effective as passed on two or more grounds and is executable -- due to stay of execution of decree, same could not be executed -- such course is not legal -- held -- if second appeal is not admitted on all grounds of eviction on which decree has been passed by Court(s) below, same deserves to be and can be executed irrespective of order of admission and stay of execution of decree. (2003) 11 SCC 762 and (2016) 11 SCC 235 followed. [Paras 16 & 17
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && èkkjk 12 ¼1½¼.k½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 && csn[kyh dh fMØh ds fo#) f}rh; vihy && izfrokfnuh@vihykfFkZuh dk vfHkdFku fd oknh us mls foo'k dj@ml ij ncko Mky dj dksjs LVkai dkxt ij gLrk{kj djk fy,] ftldk mi;ksx oknh us }kjk ek= nks dejksa dh vfHk/k`fr dk djkj rS;kj djus ds fy, fd;k && djkj ds fu"iknu ds iwoZ ls mlds dCts esa rhu dejs gSa blfy, mlus ,d dejs dk dCtk cykr~ ugha fy;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && fupys U;k;ky;ksa us vfHk/k`fr ds fyf[kr djkj ij gh ugha vfirq i{kdkjksa ds ekSf[kd lk{; ij Hkh fopkj fd;k && izfrokfnuh ds dFku ij vfo'okl fd;k && Li"V vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd djkj Lo;a izfrokfnuh }kjk fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k Fkk && Bhd gh vfHkfuèkkZfjr fd;k fd izfrokfnuh us voSèk :i ls ,d vU; dejs dk dCtk ys fy;k gS && ,d dejs ij vf/kØe.k ds ckjs esa lqfopkfjr vkSj rdZ'khy rF;kRed fu"d"kZ && fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk dksbZ voSèkrk ugha dh xbZA ¼iSjk 11 ls 13
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 100 && e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼M+½ && vfrfjDr fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz'u dh fojpuk && okLrfod vko';drk ds ckjs esa fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz'u f}rh; vihy ds Kkiu esa izLrkfor ugha && U;k;ky; us Hkh ml ckjs esa fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz'u fojfpr ugha fd;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && okLrfod vko';drk ds iz'u ij vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kks± ls fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz'u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrk && vfrfjDr fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz'u dh fojpuk ls bUdkjA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 534 vuqlfjrA 2017¼3½ ts ,y ts 375 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼3½ fu"iknu && csn[kyh dh fMØh dk fu"iknu && csn[kyh ds ,d Hkh vkèkkj ij ikfjr csn[kyh dh fMØh mruh gh izHkkoh gS ftruh nks ;k mlls vfèkd vkèkkjksa ij ikfjr fMØh] rFkk fu"ik| gS && fMØh ds fu"iknu ij jksd ds dkj.k og fu"ikfnr ugha dh tk ldh && ,slh dk;Zokgh oS/k ugha && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ;fn f}rh; vihy csn[kyh ds mu leLr vk/kkjksa ij xzg.k ugha dh tkrh ftu ij fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fMØh ikfjr dh xbZ gS rks og fMØh xzg.k ds vkns'k vkSj fMØh ds fu"iknu ij jksd dh ijokg fd, fcuk] fu"ikfnr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj fu"ikfnr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2003½11 ,l lh lh 762 rFkk ¼2016½11 ,l lh lh 235 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal has been preferred by the original defendant Smt. Sangita (since died now is represented by her legal heir) challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2003 passed by District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2003, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2003 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.12- A/98, whereby suit for eviction filed by the original plaintiff Prahlad (since died, now is represented by the respondents 1-4) has been decreed on the grounds available under section 12(1)(e)&(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
2. In short the facts are that the original plaintiff Prahlad instituted a suit for eviction of tenanted residential premises against the original defendant Smt. Sangita Pathak on the grounds available under section 12(1) of the Act as well as for arrears of rent with the allegations that the defendant was given two rooms on rent of Rs.175/- p.m. vide rent note dated 11.7.1991 (Ex.P/1) for a period of 11 months but after expiry of the said period, the defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent after the month of July, 1991 and is trying to grab the tenanted premises, in furtherance of which, she lodged a false report against the plaintiff and his family members and also instituted a Civil Suit No.225-A/97, which was dismissed and decided in favour of the landlord.
3. It is further alleged that the defendant has made encroachment by taking forcible possession over another one room of road side, which has not been vacated despite issuance of a registered notice dated 6.8.1998. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff’s married son namely Shiv Shankar is residing in rented accommodation, hence the tenanted accommodation is required for his residence and there is no other alternative accommodation in possession of the plaintiff in the township of Chhindwara. On inter alia allegations, the plaintiff claimed arrears of rent of Rs.15,225/- along with compensation amount of Rs.16,600/-.
4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the defendant is tenant in three rooms since the year 1984. In the another house situated back side of the disputed house, the plaintiff has sufficient accommodation, in which the plaintiff and his son may reside, as such he has no bonafide requirement of the tenanted accommodation but he wants to let out the premises on excessive rent, therefore, the suit has been filed. On 19.4.1991, husband of defendant had died, therefore, she went Satna and due to the sudden need of tenanted accommodation to the plaintiff, she handed over possession of the same and after returning from Satna, the plaintiff got signature of the defendant on blank stamp, under pressure and contended that the plaintiff is not in need of the suit accommodation. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as twelve issues and recorded evidence of the parties and vide its judgment and decree dated 26.3.2003, held that the plaintiff is owner of the house and the defendant is tenant in the two rooms on rent of Rs.175/-p.m., on the basis of written agreement of tenancy dated 11.7.1991 (Ex.P/1) and contrary to the agreement, the defendant has taken forcible possession over one room situated towards road. The defendant has not paid rent w.e.f. August, 1991 and the plaintiff is in need of the suit premises for the residence of his son and there is no alternative accommodation available in the township. The plaintiff was also held to be entitled for receiving arrears of rent of Rs.15,225/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.16,600/- along with interest.
6. Upon appeal filed by the original defendant Smt. Sangita, learned first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by learned trial Court and vide its judgment and decree dated 29.9.2003
The court established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.
The tenant's eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide need under the Jharkhand Building Act, despite tenant's claims of hardship.
Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Transfer of Property Act, and eviction must follow legal requirements.
The burden of proof to establish subtenancy is on the landlord, and the court may affirm an eviction decree if the landlord successfully demonstrates the creation of subtenancy.
Concurrent findings of fact regarding landlord-tenant relationship upheld; second appeal dismissed due to lack of substantial question of law.
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
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
