1999 Supreme(MP) 1022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.S. Jha, J.
Zehra Bai (Mst.) - Appellant
Vs.
Jagmohan Arora - Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 694 of 1998(G)
Decided On : 08-07-1999

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 2(b) – tenant paying rent to landlord – he cannot object landlordship and ownership of landlord – landlord need not produce his title deeds.

       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – A – amendment application filed for arguments – eviction case itself cannot be decided and dismissed.

       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 6, R. 17 – plaintiff seeking amendment in pleading – his main case cannot be decided and dismissed.

        Short Note

       1. This is a revision by the land – lord. The land – lord has filed an application for eviction under section 23 – A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act before the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna. She claimed that she requires the suit premises for her bona fide need. During the proceedings an application for amendment in pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and another application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed. By the amendment she claimed that due to family settlement between the applicant and her son and daughter, the suit premises had fallen in her share and prayed for amendment in plaint. The amendment is on account of subsequent event.

       2. The application for amendment was opposed by the respondent claiming therein that the applicant is not the landlord of the house, but her son is the landlord and the petitioner has no cause of action. The Rent Controlling Authority held that if there is some partition, prima facie it should be proved to demonstrate the exclusive right of the landlord, such document must be produced at the time of institution of the application for ejectment. In the absence of the document of family settlement, it cannot be presumed that eviction application at the instance of the petitioner is maintainable. Prima facie, the burden was on the petitioner to demonstrate that she is the owner of the property and she ought to have filed documentary evidence alongwith the application. Mere recording in the application for ejectment that she is the .owner and land – lady: she shall not become land – lord. She must explain that she is the exclusive owner of the property and co – owner has no right to bring the application for eviction. The Rent Controlling Authority instead of deciding the application for amendment dismissed the application for ejectment.

       3. Counsel for respondent submitted that the order is justified and no error is committed by the Rent Controlling Authority.

       4. Perused the order. The order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is not only contrary to law, but perverse. It was for the Rent Controlling Authority to allow or reject the application for amendment. While deciding the application for amendment it could not dismiss the application for ejectment. It is not necessary for the land – lord to produce the document of her title when defendant had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. Once rent is paid to land – lady, she shall be landlord within the definition of the land – lord under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Once leave to defend is granted and rent note is on record, it does not lie in the mouth of tenant to dispute the ownership of the landlord. Under section 23D of Sub – section (3) it is provided that when an application is filed by the landlord it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, the requirement by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be of section 23 – A is bona fide.

       5. In the result, the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Rent Controlling Authority to decide the case on its merits. the authority shall also decide the application for amendment. Since the proceedings are in the nature of small cause, issues are not necessary in these proceedings, therefore, application under order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure need not be considered. The Rent Controlling Authority shall decide the application and decide the case expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Parties shall appear before the Rent Controlling Authority on 10th August, 1999. Record of the Rent Controlling Authority be sent back so as to reach the Rent Controlling Authority on or before 10th August, 1999.

       6. The revision is allowed with costs of Rs. 500/ – .