9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit premises. 2. Whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title constituted a ground for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 3. Whether the suit premises were required bona fide for rebuilding under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership of the Suit Premises: The property in question was originally owned by Khetsidas, who had adopted Prahlad Rai as a son and bequeathed the property to him through a registered will. Prahlad Rai and his two sons constituted a partnership firm, which claimed ownership of the suit premises and filed for the tenant's eviction. The tenant, while contesting the eviction, acknowledged paying rent to the plaintiffs and initiating proceedings for fixing standard rent, thereby implicitly recognizing the plaintiffs as landlords. The Trial Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship was not established, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court disagreed, recognizing the plaintiffs' derivative title and their right to receive rent. 2. Tenant's Denial of Landlord's Title: The tenant's written statement questioned the plaintiffs' ownership but did not disown the landlord-tenant relationship. The Trial Court found that the tenant's denial of the derivative title did not attract Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. However, the First Appellate Court held that the tenant's plea constituted a ground for eviction under Section 12(1)(c). The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 12(1)(c), a tenant incurs liability for eviction if they perform any act likely to adversely and substantially affect the landlord's interest. The tenant's denial of the landlord's title should be clear and unequivocal, akin to renouncing the character of a tenant. The tenant's plea in this case was a bona fide effort to protect himself by insisting on proof of ownership, rather than a malicious act, and did not amount to a clear denial of the landlord's title. 3. Requirement for Rebuilding: The Trial Court found that the suit premises were in a dilapidated condition and required rebuilding, which could not be carried out without vacating the premises. This finding was not challenged in the First Appeal and was upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court's finding that the accommodation was required bona fide for rebuilding under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act but upheld the eviction under Section 12(1)(h). The tenant was held liable to be evicted for the purpose of rebuilding. The Trial Court was directed to ascertain whether the tenant elected to be placed in occupation of the accommodation post-rebuilding, in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. No order as to costs was made.
|
