Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U.N. BHACHAWAT, J.
Radheylal Somsingh – Petitioner
Versus
Ratansingh Kishansingh – Respondent
S.A. No. 3 of 1971, C.A. No. 21-A of 1966
Decided On : 10-11-1970
ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT - APPLICABILITY - EXEMPTION - MUNICIPALITY PROPERTY - COMPOSITE CONTRACT - NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTY - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 52 - TRANSFER DURING PENDENCY OF SUIT - VALIDITY - ESTOPPEL - TENANT'S OBLIGATION TO DELIVER POSSESSION TO LANDLORD - MUNICIPALITY NOT A NECESSARY PARTY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, who had rented a property owned by the Municipality, sublet it to the defendant along with some utensils and other hotel articles. When the defendant failed to vacate the premises and pay the arrears, the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears. The defendant claimed that he had become a tenant of the Municipality and that the Municipality was a necessary party to the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Accommodation Control Act did not apply to the suit premises as they were exempted under section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which exempts accommodation owned by a local authority and used exclusively for non-residential purposes. The court also held that the Municipality was not a necessary party to the suit as the plaintiff claimed no relief against it and the controversy between the parties could be decided without its presence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Accommodation Control Act applied to the suit premises. 2. Whether the Municipality was a necessary party to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Accommodation Control Act did not apply to the suit premises because they were exempted under section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which exempts accommodation owned by a local authority and used exclusively for non-residential purposes. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Messrs Bhatia Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. D.C. Patel, AIR 1953 SC 16, which held that the exemption in section 4(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (47 of 1947) was with respect to the premises and not the parties. 2. The court held that the Municipality was not a necessary party to the suit because the plaintiff claimed no relief against it and the controversy between the parties could be decided without its presence. The court relied on the decision of this Court in Raghvendra Singh and Others v. Marhu Basant and Another, 1971 MPLJ 4, which held that a tenant is not estopped from questioning the capacity of his lessor to transfer the property and that a tenant is not estopped from pleading that the title of the original lessor has since been lost.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree with regard to arrears of rent and mesne profits, reducing the amount from Rs. 1,578 to Rs. 1,200 as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. The rest of the decree of the Courts below was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
U.N. BHACHAWAT, J.
1. This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10th November 1970 passed by the District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No 21A of 1961 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30th July 1976 by the Civil Judge Class-II Guna in Civil Suit No 34A of 1964 whereby he decreed the plaintiff respondent’s suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,578 being the amount of arrears of rent/hire charges and mesne profits.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are these:
3. The plaintiff by his notice dated 30-1-1963 determined the tenancy of the defendant and made a demand for the arrears of rent/hire charges. The defendant having failed to vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrears, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant while admitting that the suit premises were initially let out to him by the plaintiff inter-alia contended that according to the rules of the Municipality, the plaintiff was not competent to sub-let the suit premises; that the plaintiff had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent due to the Municipality; that a dispute was going on between the plaintiff and the Municipality and that the defendant had applied to the Municipality for grant of lease to him of the suit premises on his paying full arrears of rent and the Municipality had agreed to do so and as such the defendant had become tenant of the Municipality since about the year 1962.
4. The defendant also pleaded payment of arrears of rent/hire charges and thus controverted the right of the plaintiff to eject him and claim the suit amount from him. He also contended that the suit of the plaintiff suffered from the defect of non joinder of necessary party as according to him the Municipality Guna was a necessary party.
5. During the course of the trial the order of the President of the Municipality dated 20-1-1966 (Ex.D-7) was produced whereby the suit premises were allotted to the defendant. This order reads as under:-
6. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions before this Court, viz.
(2) that the Municipality was a necessary party, which having not been joined, the suit should have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned counsel also disputed the amount decreed by way of arrears of mesne profits against the defendant.
7. As regards the amount of arrears and mesne profits, an agreed submission has been made by the learned counsel for both the parties that the amount due and payable by the defendant by way of arrears of rent and /or mesne profits upto the date of suit was Rs. 1200 and not Rs. 1,578 as found by the Court below. In view of this agreed submission on the question of amount due, this Court is not required to dilate on the question as to what was the amount due.
8. With regard to applicability of the Act, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that by virtue of section 3(1) (b) of the Act, the suit premises were exempted from the purview of the Act and that the Municipality w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
