Skip to content


Smt. Jagrani Vs. Jorawal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. (Second) Appeal No. 98 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1968MP24
ActsMadhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 7
AppellantSmt. Jagrani
RespondentJorawal
Appellant AdvocateB.L. Seth, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.L. Halve, Adv.
Cases ReferredJaisri v. Rajdewan
Excerpt:
.....the conflicting authorities without taking upon itself to decide whether it should follow the onp bench decision or the other' 5. let the papers be placed before the honourable the chief justice for constituting a larger bench the question is: whether the provision relating to increase under section 7 of the m p accommodation control act, 1961 applies to clause (1) of section 7 as well, or is limited in its application to clause (2) ? opinion of the full bench dixit, c. accommodation control act, 1961, applies to clause (1) of section 7. as well, or is limited in its application to clause (2) ?' 7. in 1965 mplj 211 =(air 1965 madh pra 185) a division bench of this court has held that the paragraph in section 7 of the act beginning with the word 'increased''and ending with the proviso..........the conflicting authorities without taking upon itself to decide whether it should follow the onp bench decision or the other'5. let the papers be placed before the honourable the chief justice for constituting a larger bench the question is:whether the provision relating to increase under section 7 of the m p accommodation control act, 1961 applies to clause (1) of section 7 as well, or is limited in its application to clause (2) ?opinion of the full benchdixit, c.j.6.in this reference arising out of proceedings initiated by the appellant smt. jagrani under section 10 of the madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act), for fixation of 'standard rent' of a house made by shiv dayal j., the question which has been placed before us for decision is.....
Judgment:

Shiv Dayal, J.

1. This second appeal arises from a proceeding under Section 10 of the M P Accommodation Control Act. 1961 for assessment of standard rent by increasing it bv 70 per cent The appellant's husband. Mathura Prasad. made an application for fixation of fair rent to the Rent Con-troller in the year 1954 The Rent Controller fixed Rs 22-50 as the fair rent of the suit accommodation. In the present proceedings the appellant claimed an increase by 70 per cent under the provisions ot the M. P. Ac-commodation Control Act, 1961. (section 7), The tenant resisted the application on the ground that no further increase was permissible. The Rent Controller allowed the landlord's application and Increased the rent to Rs. 38-25, that is, by 70 per cent the accommodation being non residential. The tenant appealed. The learned District Judge has held that the landlord did not disclose all material facts which would have enabled the Rent Controlling Authority to fix standard rent under Section 7. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controlling Authority. The landlord has preferred this second appeal

2. It is common ground that all facts material for the determination of the question are on record.

3. But on the question whether the provision relating to increase under Section 7 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. applies to Clause (1) of Section 7 as well or is limited in its application to Clause (2), there are two decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. They conflict with each other The earlier decision is Shivratan v. Parasram, Misc Appeal No. 16 of 1964 D/-27-10 1964-1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47 by a Divi-sion Bench consisting of Nevaskar and Krish-nan. JJ That decision was pronounced on a reference by Tare, J. The other decision is by my Lord the Chief Justice and Pande. J. in Mukundla v. Shankerlal, 1965 MPLJ 211 =(AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185). It does not appear that the decision in Shivratan, Misc. A. No 16 ot 1964 D/-27-10 1964-1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47(supra) was brought to the notice of the Division Bench which heard Mukundlal's case 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) (supra).

4. Shri Halve contends that the earlier decision should be followed bv me Reliance is placed on Shashi Bhushan v. Bhuneshwar, AIR 1955 Pat 124. Also see Basant Lal v. Bhagwati Prasad. AIR 1964 All 210 It is true that the practice in Patna High Court is that in case of conflict between two decisions of Division Benches, the earlier decision is followed. But, in Jaisri v. Rajdewan AIR 1992 SC 83. their Lordships, after taking note of that practirp observed :

'The better course would be for the Bench hearing the case to refer the matter to a Full Bench in view of the conflicting authorities without taking upon itself to decide whether it should follow the onp Bench decision or the other'

5. Let the papers be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench The question is:

Whether the provision relating to increase under Section 7 of the M P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 applies to Clause (1) of Section 7 as well, or is limited in its application to Clause (2) ?

OPINION OF THE FULL BENCH

Dixit, C.J.

6.In this reference arising out of proceedings initiated by the appellant Smt. Jagrani under Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for fixation of 'standard rent' of a house made by Shiv Dayal J., the question which has been placed before us for decision is :

'Whether the provision relating to increase under Section 7 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, applies to Clause (1) of Section 7. as well, or is limited in its application to Clause (2) ?'

7. In 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) a Division Bench of this Court has held that the paragraph in Section 7 of the Act beginning with the word 'Increased'' and ending with the proviso applies to both Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the Act. In the Order of Reference the learned Single Judge has pointed out that a contrary view has been expressed by a Division Bench consisting of Newaskar and Krishnan JJ., in Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1964 D/- 27-10-1964 (MP) and that this decision was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided Mukundla! Agarwal's Case, 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) (supra), on 24th Novembe 1964 He has, therefore, made this reference for resolving this conflict.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that the view expressed in Mukundlal Agarwal's case 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) (supra) is right. It is no doubt true that the earlier decision of the Division Bench sitting at Indore in Babu Shivratan's Case Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1964 D/- 27-10-1964 = 1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47 (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided Mukundlal Agarwal's Case 1965 MPLJ 211-(AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185). But the line of reasoning adopted in Babu Shivratan's Case, Misc. A. No. 16 of 1964 D/-27-10-1964=1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47 (supra) is no different from the one on which Shiv Dayal J. decided Mahabir's Case. Misc. SA No, 107 of 1963 D/- 29-11-1963=1964 MPLJ (Notes) 46. All that has been said bv the Division Bench is Mukundlal Agarwal's Case 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 MP 185) (supra) about Mahabir'g Case, M.S.A. No. 107 of 1963 D/ 29-11-1963 = 1964 MPLJ (Notes) 46 (supra) applies equally to the decision of the Division Bench in Babu Shivratan's Case M.A No 16 of 1964 D/- 2710-1964 = 1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47 It does not therefore seem to us necessary to add anything further to what has been said in the case of Mukundlal Agarwal 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185).

9. Shri Halve learned counsel for the respondent, however said that the observations made in paragraph 11 of the Order in Mukundlal Agarwal's Case 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) (supra) required reconsideration. We do not agree. In our opinion, those observations correctly point out the fallacy in the argumest of the learned counsel for the respondent in Mukundlal Agarwal's Case 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185).

10. It was then said that in this case there was no justification for enhancing the rent to the full permissible limit under Section 7 of the Act. This question cannot be considered in this reference The respondent should urge it before the learned Single Judge at the time of the hearing of the appeal.

11. For these reasons, we are of theopinion that the provisions relating to increase in Section 7 of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961. apply to Clause (1)of Section 7 as well as to Clause (2) of thatSection, and that the view expressed in Mukundlal Agarwal's Case, 1965 MPLJ 211 =(AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) (supra) is right.With all respect to the learned Judges whodecided the case of Babu Shivratan. Misc A.No. 16 of 1964 D/- 27-10-1964 (MP) we donot find ourselves in agreement with theview expressed by them Parties shall heartheir own costs of this reference.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //