9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (7) TMI 755 - SC - Indian LawsWhether looking at the nature of requirement pleaded by the landlord- respondents in their applications the forum of Rent Controlling Authority was available to the respondents under Chapter III-A of the Act or whether they were required to have recourse to the jurisdiction of Civil Court by filing suits for eviction under Section 12 of the Act? Whether the landlords have succeeded in making out case of bona fide requirement of the suit premises within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 23-A of the Act? Held that - There is no merit in the plea raised on behalf of the appellants that the three respondents, one widow and her two major sons, could not have initiated proceedings for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority. We have carefully perused the two applications for eviction filed by the respondents. The bonafide requirement pleaded is of the widow landlady, the respondent no.1, who requires the suit premises for Govinda, respondent no.2 for starting his business and that of another son Hemant, the respondent no.3 for continuing the business which presently he is carrying on in rented premises. Respondents 2 and 3 being major sons of the widow respondent no.1, such requirement clearly falls also within the purview of Section 23-A (b) of the Act. The proceedings initiated before R.C.A. do not suffer from want of jurisdictional competence. To be an alternative accommodation relevant within the meaning of Section 12(1)(f) or Section 23-A(b) it must be of his own , that is, the one owned by the landlord. There is no evidence adduced by the appellants to show that in M.T. Cloth market shops are also situated on first floor of buildings and attract the same business as the shops on ground floor do. The High Court and the R.C.A. have held none of the premises pointed out by the tenant-appellants such alternate accommodation as may defeat the respondents claim. We find no reason to take a different view. Between the years 1987 and 1989 late Krishna Das, the then sole owner of the building, had sold three shops but that was an event which had taken place in the life- time of late Krishna Das and cannot have relevance for denying the claim of the respondent-landlords filed in the year 1995. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. Bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlords within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 23-A of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A of the Act: The primary issue was whether the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) had jurisdiction under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, to entertain the eviction applications filed by the landlords. The appellants argued that the requirement pleaded by the landlords did not fall under Chapter III-A and should have been addressed by the Civil Court under Section 12 of the Act. Chapter III-A, introduced by the M.P. Amendment Act No. 27 of 1983 and later amended by M.P. Act No. 7 of 1985, provides a summary procedure for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement, applicable only to specified categories of landlords defined in Section 23-J. These categories include retired government servants, widows, physically handicapped persons, etc. The Act mandates that such landlords must seek eviction through the RCA, not the Civil Court. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the RCA, referencing the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's decisions in Shivraj Jat Vs. Smt. Asha Lata Yadav and Ors. and Harbans Singh Vs. Smt. Margrat G. Bhingardive. These cases established that a widow, as a co-owner and landlady, could initiate eviction proceedings under Section 23-A(b) for the bona fide requirement of her major sons. The Court concluded that the respondents, including a widow landlady, could validly initiate proceedings before the RCA, even if the requirement was for her major sons. 2. Bona fide Requirement of the Suit Premises: The second issue was whether the landlords had successfully demonstrated a bona fide requirement for the suit premises under Section 23-A(b) of the Act. The respondents claimed that the shops were needed for the business purposes of Govinda and Hemant, the sons of the widow landlady. The Court noted that both the RCA and the High Court had meticulously evaluated the evidence and found the requirement bona fide. The landlords did not possess any other suitable alternative accommodation of their own. The Court emphasized that a landlord cannot be compelled to continue business in rented premises if they have a bona fide requirement for their own property. The appellants pointed to other accommodations allegedly available to the landlords, including tenanted premises in Ahilyapura and a first-floor space in the same building. The Court dismissed these arguments, stating that alternative accommodations must be owned by the landlord and reasonably suitable in comparison to the suit premises. The first-floor space was deemed unsuitable for business compared to ground-floor shops. The Court also referred to established legal principles, including the inherent right of a co-owner to file eviction proceedings and the principle that every right must have a remedy. It concluded that the respondents' claim was valid and the proceedings before the RCA were competent. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the RCA under Chapter III-A and the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlords. The appellants were granted four months to vacate the premises, subject to clearing arrears and filing an undertaking.
|
