9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. The second appeal filed by the defendant in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed. 2. The demised property is a shop situated at a place in the District of Hoshangabad. It was let out by the father of the plaintiff to the husband of defendant No. 1 and the father of the other defendants in the year 1951 at a monthly rent of ₹ 50/-. A Bhojnalaya was being run in the shop by the tenant. The plaintiff's father was running a sweetmeat shop in a rented premise the rent of which was ₹ 225/-per month. The plaintiff father died in 1970. Sometime later the original tenant, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, also died. He had paid rent upto September, 1972. After the death of the original. tenant, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the business of sweetmeat and Namkin was carried on should have been held to be an accommodation of his own in his occupation within the meaning of the second part of the Clause (f). (3) That no decree for damages could be awarded from the date of termination of the contractual tenancy. It could be awarded only from the date when an eviction decree was passed. 5. In our judgment the first two points of the appellants have to be rejected but the third must succeed. 6. The plaintiff had clearly pleaded in paragraph 8 of his plaint that the sweetmeat shop which he was running in the rented premises was his business and he wanted to shift it to the accommodation in question. The defendants did not deny the statement made in parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff wanted to shift to the suit shop was his business. 7. Apropos the second point it would be useful to point out that the Act replaced an earlier Act of 1955 entitled as The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955. In a similar provision is contained in Section 4(h) of the 1955 Act, the expression used was that the landlord is not in occupation of any other accommodation in the city or town for that purpose . There is a clear departure in the 1961 Act where the phraseology is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned , in the second part of Clause (f) of Section 12(1). A tenanted shop in mere occupation of the landlord fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r eviction has been made. On a plain reading of the definition aforesaid it is clear that a tenant even after the termination of his contractual tenancy does not become an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation but remains a tenant. It has been pointed out by this Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and Ors. that such a tenant is conveniently called a statutory tenant. Whether the expression aforesaid borrowed from the English Law is quite apposite or not, but, what is certain is that a person continuing in possession of the accommodation even after the termination of his contractual tenancy is a tenant within the meaning of the Act and on such termination his possession does not become wrongful, until and unless a decree for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancy a tenant unless a decree or order for eviction has been made against him, thus putting him on par with a person whose contractual tenancy still subsists. The incidents of such tenancy and a contractual tenancy must therefore be the same unless any provision of the Act conveyed a contrary intention. That under this Act such a tenant retains an interest in the premises and not merely a personal right of occupation, will also appear from Section 14 which contains provisions restricting the tenant's power of subletting. 10. In Kikabhai Abdul Hussain v. Kamlakar and Ors. [1974] M P L J 485 a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court seems to have opined even with reference to the 1961 Act that if a person continues to be in occupation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Property Act. This argument was repelled. Whether a new contractual tenancy would come into existence by acceptance of rent by the landlord in such a situation is a different matter. But this case does not lay down that the occupation of the premises by the tenant whose tenancy has been terminated by efflux of time or by notice to quit becomes unauthorised or wrongful. 12. For the reason stated above it is manifest that the defendants remained in occupation of the accommodation on and from 1-1-1973 as a tenant, conveniently to be called statutory tenant, under the Act. Their occupation was not unauthorised or wrongful until a decree for eviction was passed by the First Appellate Court on 11-8-75. Their occupation became unauthorised or w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
