9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent. 2. Personal requirement for eviction. 3. Subsequent partition decree affecting the landlord's interest. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Default in Payment of Rent: The respondents claimed eviction under section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1947, alleging that the appellant defaulted in paying rent for September, October, and November 1972. The appellant contested this, asserting that the rent had been paid but no receipt was provided, forcing him to send rent via Money Order from December 1972 onwards. The trial court found against the appellant on this issue, concluding there was a default in payment of rent for the specified period. Both the first appellate court and the High Court upheld this finding, with the High Court noting that the appellant did not challenge this finding before it. 2. Personal Requirement for Eviction: The respondents also sought eviction under section 11(1)(c) of the Rent Act, claiming the shop was needed in good faith for respondent 1, a qualified medical practitioner, to open a clinic. The appellant countered that the property belonged to a firm and could not be claimed for individual use by any partner. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the personal requirement was genuine. The first appellate court and the High Court upheld this decision. However, the Supreme Court criticized the lower courts' approach, emphasizing that the landlord must prove a continuous need for the premises throughout the proceedings and must have a subsisting interest in the property. 3. Subsequent Partition Decree Affecting the Landlord's Interest: During the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, presenting a partition decree from Suit No. 4 of 1974, which allotted the suit shop to one Pyarelal, not a party to the proceedings. The first appellate court acknowledged this but dismissed its relevance, stating the partition occurred after the suit was filed. The High Court dismissed the appellant's contention on technical grounds, noting the absence of a proper application under Order 41, Rule 27. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, emphasizing that subsequent events impacting the landlord's interest must be considered. The Court noted that the landlord's interest must subsist throughout the proceedings, and the partition decree indicated that the respondents no longer had a subsisting interest in the property. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court, and remanded the case to the first appellate court. The appellate court was directed to consider the additional evidence regarding the partition decree and determine: 1. Whether the partition decree transferred the suit shop to Pyarelal exclusively. 2. If so, whether the respondents could maintain the action and were entitled to evict the appellant on the grounds of personal requirement and/or default in payment of rent. The first appellate court was instructed to grant the application under Order 41, Rule 27, take the certified copy of the partition decree on record, allow the parties to lead additional evidence, and decide the issues accordingly. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering subsequent events that affect the landlord's interest and ensuring that the landlord has a continuous and subsisting interest in the property throughout the proceedings. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
