R. P. Sharma vs Leeladevi - 1996 Supreme(MP) 1139

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : M.B. Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Girish Shrivastava

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – E – revision under – scope of interference is more than ordinary revision and less than an appeal.
       (2) Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 116 – tenant attorned in favour of landlady by payment of rent – thereafter cannot be allowed to retract the relationship of landlord and tenant.
       (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – A (a) – landlady having no alternative accommodation in the city – fact not challenged – eviction order is proper.
        Short Note
       1. The revision is directed against the judgment & order dated 23.9.96 of Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, whereby the plaintiff – non – applicant's suit for eviction has been decreed and the defendant – appellant has been directed to vacate the house immediately after 2 months from the date of decree.
       2. Brief history of the case is that the plaintiff – non – applicant filed a suit before the Rent Controlling Authority with the assertions that she is the land – lady of the house. Earlier house was owned by her husband Bharat Kumar Shrivastava, who died somewhere in 1989. Thereafter, she alongwith her sons became the owner of the suit house. The defendant, who has taken the house on rent during the life time of her husband continued in possession and paid rent for sometime and, thereafter began making default in making payment of rent. Non – applicant, further pleaded that she bona fide requires the accommodation for her own residence as presently she is residing with her sons and is not keeping good terms with daughter – in – law, as such, she would reside in her house after it is vacated. She has no other suitable alternative accommodation in the city.
       3. The applicant resisted the suit and further pleaded that firstly all the owners of the house have not been joined in the suit and 2ndly the plaintiff does not bona – fide require the house for residence. It was also pleaded that the assertions of the plaintiff about residence in Jabalpur is not reliable as her minor sons are residing with their elder brothers for education and they cannot be brought here. Learned Rent Controlling Authority decreed the suit and directed for eviction. Hence, this revision.
       4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non – applicant alone could not file suit for eviction. The second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has never accepted non – applicant as the land – lady and for this reason also it was necessary to have joined all the owners of the house.
       5. As against it, learned counsel for the non – applicant has submitted that defendant in his statement has accepted payments of rent to non – applicant Leeladevi and thereby has attorned. Now, therefore, he cannot be allowed to retract and take a new stand. Counsel for the non – applicant further submitted that as plaintiff is not keeping in good terms with her daughter – in – law her assertion for occupation and residence in the accommodation left by her husband is genuine and has rightly been delivered by the learned Rent Controlling Authority.
       6. The scope of appreciation of evidence in such revision is more than the ordinary revision, but less than the appeal and, therefore, it will have to be seen as to whether the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controlling Authority is legal and proper?
       7. Parties have filed copies of statement of witnesses. Defendant – applicant R.P. Sharma has admitted in Examination – in – chief itself that Leeladevi (plaintiff non – applicant) was collecting the rent. This shows that defendant (applicant here) attorned and accepted Leeladevi as land – lady. Now, he cannot be allowed to retract relationship of landlord – tenant. The application for eviction in the case has been filed by Leeladevi alone and she is one of the co – owners and has been collecting rent from R.P. Sharma (who accepted himself to be the tenant) and, therefore, she was entitled to file suit of eviction for herself and on behalf of other co – owners as well. The application for eviction could not be dismissed merely on the ground that all other co – landlords have not joined. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. It may further be observed that Shri Mahendra Yadav examined by the defendant – tenant himself has admitted that Leeladevi was collecting the rent and, therefore, he accepted her to be the owner of the house. This further goes to show that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between Leedevi (plaintiff) and Shri R.P. Sharma (defendant). Now, therefore, Shri R.P. Sharma cannot be allowed to take different stand.
       8. The next question that arises for determination is as to whether Leeladevi has been successful in proving her bona – fide need for residence? Leeladevi has stated that she wants to reside in the house left by her husband. She has no other accommodation. This fact has not been disputed that Leeladevi has no other suitable accommodation for her residence at Jabalpur. Rakesh Shrivastava (P.W.2), though a relation of Leeladevi, has proved the fact of collection of rent and further stated that Leeladevi has no other suitable accommodation for her residence at Jabalpur. There is no challenge to this part of the statement.
       9. In view of above, the learned Rent Controlling Authority has rightly found in favour of plaintiff Leeladevi that she bona – fide requires the house for her residence. Thus, it cannot be said that the judgment and order of the learned Rent Controlling Authority is erroneous in any way. Hence, this revision deserves dismissal.
       10. As a result, revision is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/ – . However, applicant/tenant, as requested, is granted 2 months time for vacation. As such, he shall vacate the house on or before 15.1.97. If applicant – tenant wants to take advantage of this concession granted by the Court he shall furnish an undertaking for vacating the house by 15th January and if he fails to do so the landlord decree – holder shall not only be entitled for the eviction, but shall further be entitled to recover damage of Rs. 3,000/ – over and above the amount of rent payable.