Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Anand Pathak, J.
Kailash Narayan S/o Jagannath Prasad Bhargava - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Shyamlata W/o Brijmohan - Respondent
First Appeal No. 214 Of 2004
Decided On : 17-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri D.K. Agrawal Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Soni And Shri H.K. Shukla Adv.
Headnote:
(1) Fraud -- vitiates all actions taken pursuant thereto. (2010) 3 SCC 214, (2012) 11 SCC 574, (2016) 11 SCC 378, (2008) 12 SCC 481, (1986) 1 SCC 133, DDA (2007) 15 SCC 601 and (2006) 7 SCC 7 followed. [Para 34]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(a) -- arrears of rent -- 11 months’ tenancy was to be renewed but was neither renewed nor rent was paid to plaintiffs -- defendant No. 1 admitted rent note -- made specific pleading that biological son of defendant No. 1, arrayed as defendant No. 3, was adopted by plaintiffs therefore he became landlord and defendant No. 1 started paying rent to defendant No. 3 from 1.4.1995 -- this case suffers from peculiarity of collusion between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 -- defendant No. 3 misused the document or his position to the detriment of plaintiffs -- defendant No. 3 had no authority to take rent from defendant No. 1 -- tenancy started from 1.5.1994 and adoption was undertaken on 26.7.1994 -- when landlord-tenant relationship was established between plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, defendant No. 3 was not in picture in any manner as landlord -- attornment never done by plaintiffs vis-a-vis defendant No. 3 -- payment of rent to defendant No. 3 amounts to denial of plaintiffs’ title of landlord -- trial Court rightly passed judgment on point of arrears of rent. 1996 (II) MPWN-SN 143, 2004(3) MPLJ 162, 2005 (2) MPLJ 583, 2008 (1) MPLJ 349, 2008 (3) MPLJ 239, 2009 (3) MPLJ 445 and 2011 (1) MPLJ 675 referred to. [Paras 40 to 43]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- nuisance -- defendant No. 1 admitted rent note and its contents -- clearly established that he accepted plaintiffs as his landlord -- submission of defendant No. 1 that he started giving rent to defendant No. 3 from May, 1995 appears to place landlordship in favour of defendant No. 3 thus denying title of plaintiffs -- since May, 1995 he never paid rent to plaintiffs -- when trial Court directed him to pay rent to plaintiffs, he raised plea that he left tenanted premises, whereas he never vacated premises -- tenancy was given for residential purpose only -- defendant No. 1 himself pleaded and admitted that a school was being run since 1985 but it could not be proved by defendant No. 1 that school was running prior to execution of rent note on 1.5.1994 -- trial Court rightly held that defendant No. 1 changed use of tenanted premises -- payment of rent to defendant No. 3 was no payment in eyes of law -- element of collusion exists -- trial Court rightly decreed suit on point of S. 12(1)(c). 1996 (II) MPWN-SN 143, 2004(3) MPLJ 162, 2005 (2) MPLJ 583, 2008 (1) MPLJ 349, 2008 (3) MPLJ 239, 2009 (3) MPLJ 445 and 2011 (1) MPLJ 675 referred to. [Paras 44 to 47]
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- S. 12(1) -- Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 35 -- submission of defendant No. 1 that rent note was not exhibited or properly stamped therefore it cannot be read in evidence -- is misconceived -- defendant No.1 pleaded and categorically admitted in deposition that rent note was executed between plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and tenancy was created -- such admission does not require any document to be exhibited. (1971) 1 SCC 545, AIR 1968 Mad. 264 (DB), AIR 1919 Mad. 833, AIR 1933 Mad. 117, (2009) 2 SCC 532, (2018) 7 SCC 646, (2015) 14 SCC 341, (2015) 9 SCC 287 and (2008) 5 SCC 58 distinguished. [Para 47]
(5) Document -- requirement of exhibiting -- submission of defendant No. 1 that rent note was not exhibited or properly stamped therefore it cannot be read in evidence -- is misconceived -- defendant No. 1 pleaded and categorically admitted in deposition that rent note was executed between plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and tenancy was created -- such admission does not require any document to be exhibited. (1971) 1 SCC 545, AIR 1968 Mad. 264 (DB), AIR 1919 Mad. 833, AIR 1933 Mad. 117, (2009) 2 SCC 532, (2018) 7 SCC 646, (2015) 14 SCC 341, (2015) 9 SCC 287 and (2008) 5 SCC 58 distinguished. [Para 47]
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- S. 12(1)(o) -- unauthorized possession of portion of accommodation not included in tenancy -- defendant No. 1 took possession of area not given by plaintiffs to defendant No. 1 as tenant -- deposition of plaintiff remained unrebutted -- suit rightly decreed. 2020 (3) MPLJ 173 distinguished. 1996 (II) MPWN-SN 143, 2004(3) MPLJ 162, 2005 (2) MPLJ 583, 2008 (1) MPLJ 349, 2008 (3) MPLJ 239, 2009 (3) MPLJ 445 and 2011 (1) MPLJ 675 referred to. [Para 48]
¼1½ diV & mlds vuqlj.k esa fd, x, leLr dk;ksZ dks nwf"kr dj nsrk gSA ¼2010½ 3 ,llhlh 214] ¼2012½ 11 ,llhlh 574] ¼2016½ 11 ,llhlh 378] ¼2008½ 12 ,llhlh 481- ¼1986½ 1 ,llhlh 133] ¼2007½ 15 ,llhlh 601 rFkk ¼2006½ 7 ,llhlh 7 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ & HkkM+s dk cdk;k & 11 ekl dh vfHk/k`fr uoh—r dh tkuk Fkh ijarq u rks uoh—r dh xbZ] u oknhx.k dks HkkM+k gh lanÙk fd;k x;k & çfroknh Øekad 1 us HkkM+k i=d Lohdkj fd;k & fofufnZ"V vfHkopu fd;k fd çfroknh Øekad 1 ds tSfod iq= dks] ftls çfroknh Øekad 3 cuk;k x;k gS- oknhx.k }kjk nÙkd fy;k x;k Fkk blfy, og Hkw&Lokeh cu x;k rFkk çfroknh Øekad 1 us 1-4-1995 ls çfroknh Øekad 3 dks HkkM+k lanÙk djuk vkjaHk dj fn;k & ;g çdj.k çfroknh Øekad 1 vkSj çfroknh Øekad 3 ds e/; nqjfHklaf/k ds fo'ks"k y{k.k ls xzLr gS & çfroknh Øekad 3 us oknhx.k dk vfgr djus ds fy, nLrkost ;k viuh fLFkfr dk nq:i;ksx fd;k & çfroknh 3 dks çfroknh Øekad 1 ls HkkM+k ysus dk dksbZ çkf/kdkj ugha Fkk & vfHk/k`fr 1-5-1994 ls vkjaHk gqbZ rFkk nÙkd 26-7-1994 dks fy;k x;k & tc oknhx.k vkSj çfroknh Øekad 1 ds e/; Hkw&Lokeh@vfHk/kkjh dk laca/k LFkkfir gqvk rc çfroknh Øekad 3 fdlh Hkh çdkj ls Hkw&Lokeh ds :i esa –'; esa ugha Fkk & oknhx.k }kjk dHkh çfroknh Øekad 3 dks vfHkèkkjh dk u;k Hkw&Lokeh ugha ekuk x;k & çfroknh Øekad 3 dks HkkM+s dk lank; oknhx.k ds Hkw&Lokeh gd ds çR;k[;ku dh dksfV esa vkrk gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us HkkM+s ds cdk;k ds fcanq ij fu.kZ; Bhd gh ikfjr fd;kA 1996 ¼2½ e/; Áns'k ohDyh uksV~l] ,l,u 143] 2004 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 162] 2005 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 583] 2008 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 349] 2008 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 239] 2009 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 445 rFkk 2011 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 675 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 40 ls 43½
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ & U;wlsUl & çfroknh Øekad 1 us HkkM+ki=d vkSj mldh varoZLrq Lohdkj dh & Li"V LFkkfir fd mlus oknhx.k dks viuk Hkw&Lokeh Lohdkj fd;k & çfroknh Øekad 1 dk ;g fuosnu fd ebZ 1995 ls mlus çfroknh Øekad 3 dks HkkM+k lanÙk djuk vkjaHk dj fn;k & Hkw&LokfeRo çfroknh Øekad 3 ds i{k esa LFkkfir dj oknhx.k ds gd dk çR;k[;ku djrk çrhr gksrk gS & ebZ] 1995 ls mlus dHkh oknhx.k dks HkkM+k lanÙk ugha fd;k & tc fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mls oknhx.k dks HkkM+k lanÙk djus dk funs'k fn;k rks mlus vfHkokd~ fd;k fd mlus vfHk/k`r ifjlj NksM+ fn;k] tcfd mlus dHkh ifjlj fjä ugha fd;k & vfHk/k`fr dsoy vkoklh; ç;kstu ds fy, nh xbZ Fkh & çfroknh Øekad 1 us Lo;a vfHkokd~ vkSj Lohdkj fd;k fd lu~ 1985 ls fo|ky; py jgk Fkk] ijarq çfroknh Øekad 1 }kjk ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k tk ldk fd fo|ky; 1-5-1994 dks HkkM+ki=d ds fu"iknu ds iwoZ py jgk Fkk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Bhd gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd çfroknh Øekad 1 us vfHk/k`r ifjlj ds mi;ksx esa ifjorZu fd;k & çfroknh Øekad 3 dks HkkM+s dk lank; fof/k dh –f"V esa lank; ugha Fkk & nqjfHklaf/k dk rRo fo|eku gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds fcanq ij okn Bhd gh fMØh fd;kA 1996 ¼2½ eŒçŒ ohDyh uksV~l ,l,u 143] 2004 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 162] 2005 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 583] 2008 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 349] 2008 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 239] 2009 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 445 rFkk 2011 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 675 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 44 ls 47½
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ & LVkai vfèkfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 35 & çfroknh Øekad 1 dk fuosnu fd HkkM+ki=d çnf'kZr ugha fd;k x;k vFkok og mfpr :i ls LVkafir ugha Fkk blfy, mls lk{; esa iढ+k ugha tk ldrk & xyr /kkj.kk gS & çfroknh Øekad 1 us vfHkokd~ fd;k rFkk vfHklk{; esa lqLi"Vr% Lohdkj fd;k fd oknhx.k vkSj çfroknh Øekad 1 ds e/; HkkM+ki=d fu"ikfnr gqvk Fkk vkSj vfHk/k`fr l`ftr gqbZ Fkh & ,slh laLoh—fr dks dksbZ nLrkost çnf'kZr fd, tkus dh vko';drk ughaA ¼1971½ 1 ,llhlh 545- ,vkbvkj 1968 eækl 264- ,vkbvkj 1919 eækl 833] ,vkbvkj 1933 eækl 117- ¼2009½ 2 ,llhlh 532] ¼2018½ 7 ,llhlh 646] ¼2015½ 14 ,llhlh 341] ¼2015½ 9 ,llhlh 287 rFkk ¼2008½ 5 ,llhlh 58 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 47½
¼5½ nLrkost & çnf'kZr djus dh vko';drk & çfroknh Øekad 1 dk fuosnu fd HkkM+ki=d çnf'kZr ugha fd;k x;k vFkok og mfpr :i ls LVkafir ugha Fkk blfy, mls lk{; esa iढ+k ugha tk ldrk & xyr /kkj.kk gS & çfroknh Øekad 1 us vfHkokd~ fd;k rFkk vfHklk{; esa lqLi"Vr% Lohdkj fd;k fd oknhx.k vkSj çfroknh Øekad 1 ds e/; HkkM+ki=d fu"ikfnr gqvk Fkk vkSj vfHk/k`fr l`ftr gqbZ Fkh & ,slh laLoh—fr dks dksbZ nLrkost çnf'kZr fd, tkus dh vko';drk ughaA ¼1971½ 1 ,llhlh 545] ,vkbvkj 1968 eækl 264] ,vkbvkj 1919 eækl 833] ,vkbvkj 1933 eækl 117] ¼2009½ 2 ,llhlh 532] ¼2018½ 7 ,llhlh 646] ¼2015½ 14 ,llhlh 341] ¼2015½ 9 ,llhlh 287 rFkk ¼2008½ 5 ,llhlh 58 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 47½
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼.k½ & LFkku ds ,sls va'k ij vçkf/k—r dCtk tks vfHk/k`fr esa lfEefyr ugha & çfroknh Øekad 1 us ml {ks= ij dCtk dj fy;k tks oknhx.k }kjk çfroknh Ø- 1 dks vfHk/kkjh ds :i esa ugha fn;k x;k Fkk & okfnuh dk vfHklk{; v[kafMr jgk & okn Bhd gh fMØh fd;k x;kA 2020 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 173 çHksfnrA 1996 ¼2½ eŒçŒ ohDyh uksV~l ,l,u 143- 2004 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 162] 2005 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 583] 2008 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 349] 2008 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 239] 2009 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 445 rFkk 2011 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 675 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 48½
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1/tenant being crestfallen by the judgment and decree dated 23-08-2004 passed by II Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.13-A/1996 whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been decreed.
2. Facts in brief are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 Smt. Shyamlata along with her husband Brijmohan Das (since deceased) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the present appellant/defendant No.1. Initially, two defendants were arrayed as parties in which defendant No.2 – Chatur Bihari Shrivastava was a person who stood guarantor for payment of rent, therefore, arrayed as defendant.
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs with the allegations that they are having two storey house at Sadar Bazaar Tekari, Shivpuri of ownership and possession of plaintiffs, four corners of which are mentioned in the plaint. Defendant No.1 (Kailash Narayan present appellant) took the said house (except some portion) for residential purpose on 01-05-1994 on rent of Rs.2300/- per month as per the rent note dated 01-05-1994 and conditions contained therein. Defendant No.2 -Chatur Bihari Shrivastava stood guarantor for payment of rent.
4. Appellant/defendant No.1 as per the agreement, paid rent till 15-04-1995 and thereafter stopped paying rent to the landlords. Receipt for the rent was given by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1 and last receipt is of 15-04-1995 for paying rent till March, 1995. Since 01-04-1995 payment was not made. As per condition No.12 of the rent note, some rooms which were in possession of plaintiffs were taken by defendant No.1 with forcible possession and therefore, on report of plaintiffs, police intervened and gave possession of the said rooms to the plaintiffs.
5. It is the allegation of plaintiffs that defendant No.1 without permission from the plaintiffs used the house for the purpose of school (commercial activities) and changed the use of tenancy from residential to commercial. Plaintiffs wanted to live in house because the house was situated in the center of city of Shivpuri and is easily accessible, therefore, they have bona fide requirement for personal use.
6. Against defendant No.3 -Ashutosh (impleaded later) it was the allegation of plaintiffs that Ashutosh is son of defendant No.1 and he colluded with defendant No.1 and by misrepresentation defendant No.1 got his son adopted by plaintiffs by way of registered Adoption Deed. Later on realising the mischief at the hands of defendant No.1, for cancellation of said Adoption Deed, a suit has been filed by the plaintiff before III Civil Judge Class -II, Shivpuri. Defendant No.3 colluded with defendant No.1 to the extent that he represented himself as landlord. Defendant No.1 also mentioned the fact in his reply to the notice that since defendant No.3 is receiving rent w.e.f. 01-04-1995, therefore, there is no arrears of rent exists and all rent has been duly paid to landlord.
7. According to plaintiff total arrears of rent between 01-04-1995 to 31-01-1996 (total 10 months) comes to Rs.23,000/- and with interest its comes to Rs.24,265/- which plaintiff deserves to receive from defendant No.1. On this ground also, eviction decree be drawn against the defendants.
8. Contesting defendant – Kailash Narayan/present appellant filed his written statement and contested the case. According to appellant/defendant No.1 right of recovery of rent lies with plaintiffs as well as their son Ashutosh (defendant No.3 herein) and since Ashutosh had the right to receive the rent, therefore, rent has been received by him and defendant No.1 paid this rent to defendant No.3. In the disputed house, one room is occupied by defendant No.3 and some other rooms are occupied by the plaintiffs. Use of the house is in possession of defendant No.1. Since that part which is occupied by defendant No.3, a school is being run and one room is occupied by defen
