Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Vimal Chand Jain & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M.P. Khadi Sanstha Sangh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 51 of 2007
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Section 12(1)(f) - M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961, the requirement of bonafide need for continuing or starting a business, and the implications of unregistered partnership deeds on eviction decrees.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought eviction of the respondent/defendant from a property under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bonafide need for their hotel business. The trial court partly allowed the suit, granting eviction only for the first floor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's refusal to grant eviction for the ground floor based on the unregistered partnership deed was erroneous. It held that the need of the landlord, even if a partner in an unregistered firm, should be considered for eviction under Section 12(1)(f).
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 12(1)(f) and the relevance of unregistered partnership deeds in eviction suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 12(1)(f) and the legal implications of unregistered partnership deeds, emphasizing that the need of the landlord, even in an unregistered firm, should be considered for eviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court refusing eviction for the ground floor were set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in its entirety, directing the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the ground floor within 60 days.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/landlords under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 215-A/2006 by X Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhopal whereby the suit filed by them under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (For short 'Act of 1961') has been partly allowed holding them entitled to get the vacant possession of first floor of House No.7, New Market, Bhopal, but the trial court has refused to grant decree of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 with regard to ground floor of the house in question in which the defendant/tenant is running a shop in the name and style 'Charm Shilp'.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the second floor of the house in question the appellants/plaintiffs are running hotel business in the name and style 'Hotel Anjlik' and the said hotel is being run by the partners on the basis of a partnership deed (Ex.P/4) executed on 08.02.2005 in which the plaintiffs are the partners, but, the said partnership deed is unregistered.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the portion where the appellants' firm was doing business of hotel was not sufficient, therefore, they asked the defendant/tenant to vacate the premises, which has been occupied by them in the ground floor as well as first floor, but, they refused to vacate the said premises, therefore, on 01.03.2005, the suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 saying that they have no other suitable alternative accommodation in the Bhopal City for doing their business and hence the premises, which has been rented out to the respondent/defendant, is bonafidely required by them and, therefore, the decree of eviction against the defendant (tenant) be passed.
4. The trial court framed as many as four issues and after recording the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties, decreed the suit granting decree of eviction only in respect of the first floor of the house in question, but, so far as the portion of ground floor is concerned, the trial court refused to grant decree of eviction mainly on the ground that the said portion belonged to plaintiff No. 2 Sanjeev Jain and he was inserted to be a partner in the business of hotel only by a partnership deed dated 08.02.2005 (Ex.P/4), but the said deed was unregistered. As per the trial court, Vimal Chand Jain (PW-1), in his statement has stated that his elder son Vineet Jain and his wife Rani Jain and the Plaintiff No. 2 Sanjiv Jain and his wife Sangeeta Jain are running the business of Hotel Anjlik and they started the said business by creating a partnership firm. The Registration Certificate (Ex. P/3) of the said hotel was produced and that reveals that the certificate was issued in the name of Anjlik firm in which Sachin Jain and Rani Jain were shown to be owner, manager and agent. Sanjiv Jain (PW-2), in his statement has stated that in the year 1997 there used to be three partners of Hotel Anjlik, but, that partnership deed of 1997 was not produced. The trial court, therefore, has found that when certificate- Ex.P/3 does not contain the name of third partner i.e. Sanjiv Jain, who was said to be a partner of Anjlik Hotel by virtue of unregistered partnership deed dated 08.02.2005 (Ex.P/4), he cannot be considered to be a partner of Hotel Anjlik and for the need of that hotel, tenanted premises belongs to plaintiff No.2 cannot be evicted for the need of Hotel Anjlik.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of the trial court is illegal and contrary to settled legal position because in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the judgment, the trial court considered the plaintiffs to be the landlords and defendant/respondent have been considered to be the tenant of the premises for which decree of Section 12(1)(f) was sought. He submits that the finding given by the t
The central legal point established is that the need of the landlord, even in an unregistered firm, should be considered for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 196....
Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act is not a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm.
A landlord is the sole arbiter of their bona fide requirement for property use. A tenant cannot dictate the landlord's property utilization, and failure to pay stipulated rent, coupled with the expir....
In eviction proceedings governed by rent control laws, a landlord need not prove absolute title, only the right to possession. A licensee is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from questi....
The court upheld the plaintiff's need for the premises for building purposes, finding the notice to quit valid and the defendant's claim of manufacturing unproven.
The exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 applies to the premises itself and is not dependent on the relationship of landlord and tenant. Additionally, the plain....
An oral agreement of sale does not supersede a tenant's rights without a written document; thus, a plea of part performance in illegal tenancy is unsustainable.
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
