9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Heritability of statutory tenancy. 2. Validity of tender of rent by cheque. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal on the question of bona fide requirement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Heritability of Statutory Tenancy: The plaintiffs contended that the statutory tenants, Begamal and Budharmal, had no heritable interest in the demised premises and, upon their death, the right to prosecute the appeal did not survive to their heirs. They relied on the judgments in *Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors.* and *Jagdish Chander Chatterjee and Ors. v. Sri Kishan & Anr.*, which held that a statutory tenant has no estate or interest in the premises but only a personal right to remain in occupation. However, the court examined the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, particularly Section 2(i), which defines 'tenant' to include a person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy unless a decree or order for eviction has been made against him. The court concluded that the statutory tenant under this Act retains an interest in the premises, making the tenancy heritable. Therefore, the respondents had the right to prosecute the appeal in the High Court, and the plaintiffs' first contention failed. 2. Validity of Tender of Rent by Cheque: The defendants tendered the arrears of rent by cheque, which the plaintiffs refused to accept, claiming it was not a valid tender. The trial court supported this view, but the High Court differed, holding that in contemporary society, payment by cheque should be considered a valid tender unless dishonored. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, stating that rent is payable like any other debt and that the mode of payment can be altered by agreement. Given the circumstances, the court inferred an implied agreement that the payment by cheque would be accepted, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' second contention. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Second Appeal on the Question of Bona Fide Requirement: The plaintiffs argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction in second appeal to reverse the first appellate court's finding on the question of bona fide requirement, which they claimed was a finding of fact. The High Court, however, found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their bona fide requirement for the premises. The trial court had initially found the plaintiffs' claim unjustified based on evidence of insufficient funds to start a new business. The first appellate court reversed this finding, but the High Court noted that the lower appellate court had overlooked critical evidence, such as the plaintiffs' admissions regarding their insufficient income. The Supreme Court held that ignoring important and relevant evidence renders a finding of fact bad in law, thus validating the High Court's jurisdiction to set aside the lower appellate court's finding. Consequently, the plaintiffs' third contention was also rejected. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld, restoring the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit for eviction. The court made no order as to costs.
|
