Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Krishna Gopal Khandelwal v. Poonamchand Paharia (Dead) through LRs
Second Appeal No. 510 of 2000 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2000 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in C. A. No. 172A of 1999; Decided on 20.4.2023
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6 R.17 and S.100 -- M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S. 12 (1) (e) -- amendment application in second appeal for taking subsequent events on record in eviction proceedings -- pleading that during pendency of appeal, son of plaintiff purchased two duplexes for his residence therefore bona fide requirement for residential purposes of his son has ended -- plaintiff pointed out that his two other major sons are residing in said duplexes and concerned son and his wife are still residing in house in question -- bona fide need for residential purposes still subsisting -- further, family of plaintiff consists of 6 members -- even if two duplexes have been purchased, it would not have any impact on merits of case -- application rejected. [Para 11
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- S. 12 (1) (e) -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- subsistence of bona fide requirement till passing of final decree by appellate Court -- crucial date for ascertaining bona fide need is date of institution of suit -- subsequent events should be such which may overshadow bona fide need -- Civil Appeal was decided in year 2000 and this appeal is pending for 23 years -- act of Court should not prejudice any one -- appellant approached this Court and prayed for stay on execution of judgment and decree -- pleaded in written statement that family of plaintiff consists of 6 members -- plaintiff/landlord cannot be compelled to squeeze in small accommodation along with his children -- cannot be compelled to wait for decision by spending his life in such pathetic condition -- if plaintiff is compelled to make certain arrangements for settlement of his family, he cannot be non-suited for same. (2004) 5 SCC 772, (2002) 1 SCC 610, (2001) 2 SCC 604 and (1997) 4 SCC 413 followed. [Para 17
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-6 fu-17 rFkk /kkjk 100 && e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 &&/kkjk 12¼1½ ¼M-½ && csn[kyh dk;Zokgh esa f}rh; vihy esa ijorhZ ?kVukØe vfHkys[k ij fy, tkus gsrq la'kks/ku vkosnu && vfHkopu fd vihy ds yacu ds nkSjku oknh ds iq= us vius vkokl ds fy, nks nqeaftyk edku Ø; dj fy, blfy, vkoklh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, mlds iq= dh okLrfod vko';drk lekIr gks xbZ && oknh us crk;k fd mDr nqeaftyk edkuksa esa mlds vU; nks o;Ld iq= fuokl dj jgs gSa rFkk lacaf/kr iq= vkSj iRuh vc Hkh iz'uxr edku esa fuokljr gSa && vkoklh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, okLrfod vko';drk vc Hkh vfLrRo esa && blds vfrfjDr] oknh ds dqVqac esa 6 lnL; gSa && nks nqeaftyk edku Ø; dj fy, x, gksa rc Hkh mlls izdj.k ds xq.kkxq.k ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+sxk && vkosnu ukeatwjA ¼iSjk 11
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ &&/kkjk 12¼1½¼M+½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 &&/kkjk 100 && vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vafre fMØh ikfjr fd, tkus rd okLrfod vko';drk dk vfLrRo && okLrfod vko';drk vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, fu.kkZ;d fnukad okn ds laLFkkiu dk fnukad gS && ijorhZ ?kVuk,¡ ,slh gksuk pkfg, ftuls okLrfod vko';drk Qhdh iM+ tk, && flfoy vihy o"kZ 2000 esa fofuf'pr gqbZ Fkh rFkk ;g vihy 23 o"kZ ls yafcr gS && U;k;ky; ds dk;Z ls fdlh dh gkfu ugha gksuk pkfg, && vihykFkhZ us bl U;k;ky; esa vkdj fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh ds fu"iknu ij jksd dh izkFkZuk dh && fyf[kr dFku esa vfHkokd~ fd;k fd oknh ds dqVqac esa 6 lnL; gSa && oknh@edkuekfyd dks viuh larkuksa lfgr NksVs ls LFkku esa ladqfpr gksdj jgus ds fy, foo'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fofu'p; dh izrh{kk esa ,slh 'kkspuh; voLFkk esa thou O;rhr djus ds fy, foo'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ;fn oknh vius dqVqac ds okl ds fy, dfri; O;oLFkk,¡] djus dks foo'k gksrk gS rks ml dkj.k mldk nkok [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2004½5 ,l lh lh 772] ¼2002½1 ,l lh lh 610] ¼2001½2 ,l lh lh 604 rFkk ¼1997½4 ,l lh lh 413 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17
JUDGMENT
1. This Second Appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.2.2000 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in C.A. No. 172A/1999, arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 18.7.1999 passed by 6th Civil Judge Class 1 Jabalpur in C.S. No. 110/1998.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of House No. 429 and 430 situated in Kotwali Ward, Jabalpur which he had got in family partition on 21.12.1984. The Appellant is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The Appellant is irregular in payment of rent. The son of the plaintiff Dr. Rakesh Pahadiya got married on 30.1.1990 and doesnot have any alternative and suitable accommodation in city of Jabalpur. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for residential purposes.
3. The Appellant filed his written statement and denied the ownership of the plaintiff. He claimed that father of the defendant/appellant, namely Ambika Prasad Khandelwal was the tenant of father of the plaintiff namely Mohanlal. After the death of Ambika Prasad Khandelwal, his sons namely Vishnu Gopal, Madan Gopal, Govind Das and the defendant became the tenant. Similarly after the death of owner namely Shri Mohanlal all his children i.e., five sons and daughters became the owner. The defendant is a tenant of 2 rooms, one hall and 2 roofs and monthly rent is Rs. 38/-. There are total 6 members in the family of the plaintiff and at present are residing in three storey building. The ground floors have been let out to Ankit Traders and Sapna Garments who are carrying on business. All the necessary parties have not been impleaded and accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit and it was held that the plaintiff is in bonafide requirement for residential purpose and has no alternative and suitable accommodation in the city of Jabalpur.
5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the Appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Decree.
6. The appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law :
“Whether the contract of tenancy being a single and individual ontract, a decree for eviction of only portion of the tenancy, fell in the share of the plaintiff during the partition or family arrangements, can legally be passed?”
7. The Counsel for the Appellant could not point out any thing from the record to show that the suit was filed only in respect of a part of tenanted premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the exclusive owner of the suit property, i.e., House No. 429 and 430 situated in Kotwali Ward, Jabalpur which he had got in the family partition. In fact the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the tenanted premises and the appellant/defendant had claimed that he is in possession of 2 rooms, one hall and two roofs as a tenant. It was the case of the defendant that the house in question went to all the legal heirs of Mohanlal, but the plaintiff has produced the partition deed, Ex. P1C. According to this partition deed Ex. P.1C, one part of house No. 429,430 situated in Kotwali Ward was given to the plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff had got a part of the house No. 429,430 and the defendant is the tenant in the part of the house which went to the share of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the defendant that half portion of the tenanted premises went to the share of plaintiff and remaining part of the tenanted premises went to the share of some other brother. Even as per the evidence, the case of defendant Krishna Gopal (D.W.1) is that after the death of Mohanlal, all the legal heirs of Mohanlal became owner of the house in question. It is not his case that his tenanted portion has fallen
The death of a landlord necessitates that a legal heir must establish their own bonafide requirement for premises independently, distinguishing it from the deceased's claims.
Heirs of a deceased landlord must establish their own bonafide requirement for eviction; the original requirement does not automatically extend to them.
The bona fide need of a landlord under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act includes the needs of their spouse, and heirs can execute eviction decrees despite the original landlord's death.
The court established that subsequent events, such as the death of landlords, must be considered in eviction proceedings to ensure justice and the rightful assessment of bona fide needs.
The court upheld the eviction decree based on the landlord's bonafide requirement, emphasizing that subsequent events post-1999 Rent Act cannot negate established needs under the Bombay Rent Act, 194....
Legal heirs cannot introduce new claims in eviction proceedings after the death of original petitioners, as their right to seek eviction based on personal requirement becomes extinct.
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
