Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Govind v. Pankaj Kumar
Second Appeal No. 271 of 2014 (Indore): against the judgement and decree dated 28.4.2014 passed by the 16th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 10/2013; Decided on 20.10.2023
(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 -- landlord is always entitled to consider various options available in respect of rented premises -- such other options shall have no bearing on eviction suit unless materialized. [Para 4.4]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) -- stated by plaintiff in plaint that he had filed eviction suits against three tenants -- merely because decree of eviction has been passed in favour of plaintiff for one of such shops, it would not entail any benefit to defendant/tenant as plaintiff has clearly come out with case that he requires all three shops to commence his business. [Para 5.3]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27-- application to bring additional documents on record -- documents already available in public domain -- could have been filed earlier – merely saying that they could not be obtained after exercise of due diligence, is of no avail. [Para 6.3]
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 -- mere planning of using property in particular manner which has not materialized, would not disentitle landlord from evicting tenant on any ground available to him under Act. [Para 8.2]
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) -- non-mentioning of other non-residential accommodation -- requirement of law is that apart from bona fide requirement of accommodation let to tenant for non-residential purposes, landlord is also required to show that he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in city or town concerned -- landlord clearly averred that he has three shops adjacent to each other, which he requires for his business purposes -- non-mentioning of shop which according to plaintiff-landlord was not suitable and was not to his purpose, would not make any difference. 2009 (1) MPLJ 343 and AIR 1981 SC 1711 = 1981 MPLJ (SC) 610 distinguished. [Para 26]
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) -- availability of sufficient accommodation -- Courts can always see suitability of accommodation of landlord, not disclosed earlier by him/her, and even brought to its notice by tenant only. (1996) 5 SCC 344 followed. 2008 (2) MPLJ 155, 2008 (1) MPLJ 561, 2008 (1) MPLJ 164, 1998 (1) JLJ 149 and 1991 JLJ 642 distinguished. [Para 28]
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) -- termination of tenancy -- plaintiff clearly stated that he issued letter to defendant for eviction and eviction suit has been filed as he did not vacate premises -- no specific issue made in this regard as defendant did not raise ground that tenancy was not terminated in accordance with law -- no cross-examination of plaintiff in this regard -- substantial question of law does not arise -- notice of eviction was proper. 2009 (1) MPLJ 313, (1996) 5 SCC 353, AIR 2009 (NOC) 1590 (MP), 2010 (II) MPJR (SC) 161, Civil Appeal No. 5513 of 2014 decided on 8.5.2014, Civil Appeal No. 9444 of 2016 decided on 7.4.2022, Civil Revision No.1462 of 2013 decided on 23.12.2022 and RC Revision No. 261 of 2010 decided on 4.9.2012 referred to. [Para 29]
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12 & Hkw&Lokeh fdjk, ij fn, x, ifjlj ds laca/k esa miyC/k fofHkUu fodYiksa ij fopkj djus dk lnSo gdnkj gS & ,sls vU; fodYiksa dk csn[kyh okn ij dksbZ çHkko ugha iM+sxk] tc rd fd og dk;kZfUor ugha gqvk gksA ¼iSjk 4-4½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼p½ & oknh }kjk okni= esa dfFkr fd mlus rhu vfHk/kkfj;ksa ds fo:) csn[kyh okn çLrqr fd, Fks & ek= blfy, fd ,slh ,d nqdku ds fy, oknh ds i{k esa csn[kyh dh fMØh ikfjr gks xbZ gS] çfroknh@vfHk/kkjh dks dksbZ Qk;nk çkIr ugha gksxk D;ksafd oknh bl Li"V i{kdFku ds lkFk vk;k gS fd mls viuk dkjckj vkjaHk djus ds fy, rhuksa nqdkuksa dh vko';drk gSA ¼iSjk 5-3½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 41 fuŒ 27 & vfrfjä nLrkost vfHkys[k ij ykus ds fy, vkosnu & nLrkost igys ls lkoZtfud Kku{ks= esa miyC/k & igys çLrqr fd, tk ldrs Fks & ek= ;g dgus ls dksbZ ykHk ugha fd lE;d~ rRijrk ç;qä djus ds i'pkr~ Hkh og vfHkçkIr ugha fd, tk ldsA ¼iSjk 6-3½
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12 & fdlh fof'k"V jhfr esa laifÙk dk mi;ksx djus dh ,slh ;kstuk cukus ek= ls tks dk;kZfUor ugha gqbZ] Hkw&Lokeh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mls miyC/k fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij vfHk/kkjh dks csn[ky djus ls fugZfdr ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 8-2½
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & vU; fuoklsrj LFkku dk vuuqYys[k & fof/k dh vis{kk gS fd fuoklsrj ç;kstuksa ds fy, vfHk/kkjh dks fdjk, ij fn, x, LFkku dh okLrfod vko';drk ds vfrfjä- Hkw&Lokeh }kjk ;g Hkh vko';dr% n'kkZ;k tk, fd lacaf/kr 'kgj ;k uxj esa mlds vf/kHkksx esa mldk Lo;a dk dksbZ vU; ;qfä;qä çdkj ls mi;qä fuoklsrj LFkku ugha gS & Hkw&Lokeh us Li"V çdFku fd;k fd mlds ikl rhu lkaikf'oZd nqdkusa gSa] ftudh mls vius dkjckj ds ç;kstuksa ds fy, vko';drk gS & ml nqdku ds vuuqYys[k ls dksbZ varj ugha iM+sxk tks oknh@Hkw-Lokeh ds vuqlkj mlds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;qä ugha rFkk mlds fy, fu:n~ns'; gSA 2009 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 343 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1981 ,llh 1711 % 1981 ,eih,yts ¼,llh½ 610 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 26½
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & i;kZIr LFkku dh miyC/krk & U;k;ky; lnSo Hkw&Lokeh ds ml LFkku dh mi;qärk ns[k ldrs gSa tks mlds }kjk iwoZ esa çdV ugha fd;k x;k vkSj tks vfHk/kkjh }kjk gh mldh –f"V esa yk;k x;kA ¼1996½ 5 ,llhlh 344 vuqlfjrA 2008 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 155] 2008 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 561] 2008 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 164] 1998 ¼1½ ts,yts 149 rFkk 1991 ts,yts 642 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 28½
¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & vfHkèk`fr dh lekfIr & oknh us Li"V dFku fd;k fd mlus csn[kyh ds fy, çfroknh dks i= tkjh fd;k rFkk mlus ifjlj fjä ugha fd;k blfy, csn[kyh okn çLrqr fd;k x;k & bl fo"k; esa dksbZ fofufnZ"V fook|d fojfpr ugha D;ksafd çfroknh us vk/kkj ugha mBk;k fd vfHk/k`fr fof/k ds vuqlkj lekIr ugha dh xbZ & bl fo"k; esa oknh dh çfrijh{kk ugha & fof/k dk lkjoku~ ç'u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrk & csn[kyh dk lwpuki= mfpr FkkA 2009 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 313] ¼1996½ 5 ,llhlh 353] ,vkbvkj 2009 ¼,uvkslh½ 1590 ¼,eih½ 2010 ¼2½ ,eihtsvkj ¼,llh½ 161] flfoy vihy Øekad 5513 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 8-5-2014- flfoy vihy Øekad 9444 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 7-4-2022- flfoy iqujh{k.k Øekad 1462 lu~ 2013 fu.khZr fnukad 23-12-2022 rFkk HkkM+k fu;a=.k iqujh{k.k Øekad 261 lu~ 2010 fu.khZr fnukad 4-9-2012 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 29½
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard finally.
2. This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 28.4.2014, passed by the 16th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No.10/2013, by which the judgement and decree dated 29.8.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class – II, Indore in COS No.41-A/2011 for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961') has been affirmed.
3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 9.4.2015 on the following substantial questions of law :--
“(a) Whether the learned Courts below have erred in law in passing the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Although the respondent has sufficient accommodation available with him?
(b) Whether the tenancy for the appellant was terminated by respondent as per requirements of law and, hence, decree for eviction is contrary to provisions of law?”
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS.
4. Since there are as many as seven Interlocutory Applications filed by the Appellant/defendant, either to bring additional documents on record or to amend the written statement, it is necessary to decide the same before proceeding with the matter on merits. These applications are being decided as hereunder :-
4.1. I.A. No.6816 of 2019,- which is an application filed under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC by the appellant on 11.9.2019, seeking to place on record the documents, include the agreement dated 25.9.2001 which was entered into between the respondent landlord and his brothers on one side and M/s. Siddhikripa Construction Company on the other side, which is in respect of development of their property at 22/1 Sanyogitaganj, Murai Mohalla, Indore on which the disputed shop is situated. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the only intention of the plaintiff is to vacate the premises so that a building can be constructed on the same, and the reasons assigned in the eviction suit are only an excuse to evict the defendant from the said premises, and does not fall under section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961.
4.2. I.A. No.6817 of 2019 along with the aforesaid application I.A. No.6816 of 2019, this I.A. No.6817 of 2019 for amendment in the written statement has also been filed on 11.9.2019, to the effect that the plaintiff wants to construct a commercial building on the plot, which was executed between the applicant and his family members with the builder, which shows that the plaintiff did not require the shop to commence his business.
4.3. The aforesaid applications have been opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing separate replies, rebutting the averments made in the aforesaid applications. It is stated that on account of the dispute between brothers of the plaintiff, the map was not even sanctioned, and the document has died its own death. It is also submitted that all the brothers have already obtained their shares and are in possession of their respective shares and thus, no case for interference is made out, at this stage.
4.4. On perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so far as the agreement filed by the appellant is concerned, it appears to have been signed by the applicant and his brothers on one hand and one M/s. Siddhikripa Construction Company on the other. However, as the plaintiff's case is that this document was not acted upon and has died its own death due to lapse of time. In the considered opinion of this Court, the defendant cannot rely upon the such document and no benefit can be said to have accrued to the defendant on account of the said document, which appears to have been signed in the year 2001, as a landlord is always entitled to consider the various options available to him or her in respect of the rented premises and such other options shall have no bearing on the eviction suit unless materialized. In view of the same, both the applications, being devoid of merits, appear to have been filed only
Landlords must demonstrate bona fide requirements for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act; non-use of premises for six months provides grounds for eviction.
The landlord is obligated to plead and prove the availability of alternate accommodation and its unsuitability for the alleged need, as per the provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Accommodation Con....
The Court emphasized the presumption of bona fide need in favor of the Landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the restrictive scope of interference by the High Court in re....
Landlords can seek tenant eviction based on bona fide need, despite owning other properties nearby, provided alternatives do not meet their specific business requirements.
The landlord's authorization to file an eviction petition, the bona-fide need for the tenanted shop, and the unavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation were central to the court'....
The landlord's bonafide need for the tenanted premises, the landlord's subjective choice in selecting suitable accommodation, and the limited scope of the court's revisional jurisdiction were the cen....
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
