Skip to content


Firm Panjumal Daulatram Vs. Sakhi Gopal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC2077; (1977)3SCC284; [1977]3SCR767; 1977(9)LC380(SC)
ActsMadhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12 and 12(1)
AppellantFirm Panjumal Daulatram
RespondentSakhi Gopal
Cases ReferredSanyal v. Gian Chand
Excerpt:
property - eviction - section 12 of madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961 - suit for eviction of accommodation filed by landlord on ground of reasonable requirement of tenanted premises - premises required for being used as medical store by landlord - bonafide need of landlord validly made out - landlord held to be entitled to eviction of accommodation - tenant given some time to rehabilitate himself. - [a.k. sarkar, c.j.,; j.m. shelat,; j.r. mudholkar,; m. hidayatullah, jj.] the respondents were arrested by the police for the offence of trespass and were released on bail. they were tried and sentenced to pay a fine by the nyaya panchayat, a court established under the madhya bharat panchayat act, 1949, with powers to impose only a sentence of fine. the conviction was set aside..........in our towns where scarcity of accommodation is the rule it is not that easy to secure alternative premises. taking due note of this reality, we direct that while dismissing the appeal the eviction order shall not be put into execution before 1st january, 1978.
Judgment:

v.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. A suit for eviction of an accommodation from the tenant to whom it had been let for residential and non-residential purpose resulted in dismissal by the trial Judge. But in an appeal, the final court of fact took the view that the landlord (respondent) was entitled to eviction The tenant challenged the appellate decree before the High Court in Second Appeal without success and has therefore come up to this Court with this appeal by special leave.

2. A short point has been raised which deserves only a short answer. Since we agree with the High Court which in turn has agreed with the first appellate court, out judgment can afford to be brief.

3. A statement of necessary facts may now be given. The landlord had let out the premises, which is a storeyed building, to the tenant as per Ex. P-1 of 1955. The significant clause in the lease deed runs thus :

1. xxxxxx

2. I take your house for my own use i.e. for opening a cloth shop and for residential purposes and I will not sub-let your house to anybody.XXX XXX XXX XXX.

The tenant has thus put the buildings to business and residential purposes. The landlord, who is an M. Sc. claimed the building back on the score that he wan ted to run a medical store on the ground floor...a non residential purpose...and stay on the first floor with his wife...a residential purpose. Thus the accommodation was let out for dual purposes, was being presumably for these requirements and was being claimed back by the landlord for the twin purposes mentioned above. The final court of fact has held that the landlord needs the building for his chemist's shop and for his residential use. The High Court in Second Appeal has upheld this finding and added that

the finding as to his bonafides requirements was rightly not challenged before me.... The conclusion that the courts have reached is the only conclusion possible on the evidence on record in the light of the circumstances appearing.

This statement by the High Court that the bonafide requirement of the landlord was not challenged before it has not been questioned in the memorandum of appeal to the Court. It must therefore be taken that the bonafide need at the landlord is validly made out.

4. The short point that survives is as to whether the composite purposes of the lease would put it out of the ground set out for eviction under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The said Act defines 'accommodation' thus :

'accommodation' means any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residential and includes,...XX XXX XXX XXX.

If follows that an accommodation can be residential, non-residential or both, Section 12 bars an action of eviction of a tenant from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds set out therein. Section 12(1)(e) AND bearing on the present case, may be appropriately extracted here :

12, Restriction on eviction of tenant (1)(a) to (d)

(e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord of such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in the occupation in the city or town concerned;

(f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned:XXX XXX XXX.

The residential portion is a part of the building and is an accommodation by definition. The non residential portion is also a part of the building and is an accommodation by definition. The lease has been given for residential as well as non residential purposes The landlord is entitled to eviction of the residential portion if he makes out a bonafide residential requirements. Likewise he is entitled to eviction of the non-residential portion which is an accommodation if he makes out a non-residential requirement. We have already found that the final court of fact, affirmed by the High Court, has found in favour of the landlord regarding his residential as well as non-residential requirements. Therefore, nothing more can be done in defence if the tenant in the light of the present law.

5. Counsel contended that in a decision of this Court, viz. Sanyal v. Gian Chand : [1968]1SCR536 . it has been held that it is not permissible for the court to split up a contract in an eviction proceeding. We agree,. There is no question of splitting up of the contract in the present case, as is abundantly plain from what we have stated. The contract was integral but had dual purposes. The landlord has put forward dual requirements which neatly fit into Section 12 1968 1 SCR 536. (e) and (f). The consequence is inevitable that the eviction order has to be up held

6. It is seen that the tenant has been doing a thriving cloth business, with goodwill attached to it, for well knigh 30 years. It is therefore but fair that the tenant is given some time to rehabilitate himself by securing an alternative but suitable accommodation. In our towns where scarcity of accommodation is the rule it is not that easy to secure alternative premises. Taking due note of this reality, we direct that while dismissing the appeal the eviction order shall not be put into execution before 1st January, 1978.


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