1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4013-4014 OF 2010

SINNIBAI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HITSHARAN RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The present appeals arise from the order dated

07.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

dismissing the defendants Second Appeal arising out of an

Eviction Suit.

The Trial Court decreed the Eviction Suit on

finding that the appellants-defendants had created nuisance

in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh

(Accommodation and Control) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

to as the “Act”). The first appeal preferred by the

appellant also stood dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

no nuisance had been created. The appellants were in

possession under a valid lease. No unauthorised

constructions had been raised on the Platform in front of

the Shop. The construction of the tin shed was with

Municipal approval, to the knowledge of the respondent.

Denying that any encroachment had been made, it was

Digitally signed by

Rajni Mukhi

Date: 2021.04.09

16:26:43 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

submitted that if the wooden platform placed over the

municipal drain adjacent to the Platform was considered an

obstruction, the appellants are willing to remove it. It

was a purely temporary arrangement and was removed

immediately after shop hours. It was specifically denied

that any inconvenience had been caused to the respondent-

plaintiff by reason of the customers coming to the shop of

the appellants. It was lastly submitted that the First

Appellate Court did not concur with the findings of the

Trial Court regarding the tin Shed only and not on the

issue of encroachment.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the

lease agreement dated 1.10.1979 was for a period of five

months only. The Platform was not to be used as shop

premises but was to be utilized by way of passage only.

The appellants could not raise any construction on the

Platform without the consent of the respondent. In this

regard, he relied upon the findings of the First Appellate

Court that the tin shed had been constructed on the

Platform without the consent of the respondent and the

municipal authorities. It was lastly submitted that the

lease deed provided that in case of violation of any

condition, the landlord would have the right to get the

shop premises vacated.

3

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the

parties and deem it appropriate to set out Section 12(1)

(c) of the Act which reads as follows:

“...that the tenant or any person residing with him

has created a nuisance or has done any act which is

inconsistent with the purpose for which he was

admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or

which is likely to affect adversely and

substantially the interest of the landlord therein.

Provided that the use by a tenant of a portion of

the accommodation as his office shall not be deemed

to be an act inconsistent with the purpose for which

he was admitted to the tenancy.”

The issue No. 3 framed by the Trial Court was as

follows:

“Whether the defendant has caused obstruction and

hindrance by putting up goods of the shop on the

public road and passage to the courtyard of the

plaintiff.”

The Trial Court after consideration of the evidence

concluded that the tin shed had been put up on the Platform

which was to be used as passage. The defendants-appellants

were obliged under the lease not to create any obstruction in

the passage to the courtyard. The placing of goods by the

appellants in the courtyard, shrinking the road by putting up

wooden platform over the drain and using the same to keep

weights and measures, bala