Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1994 DIGILAW 18 (SC)

Chela Ram v. Ramcharanlal

1994-01-05

M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.MOHAN

body1994
(1) THE civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. (2) THE respondent filed a suit for eviction on two grounds: (i) under Section 12(l)(h), that the plaintiff bona fide required the shop for reconstruction, and (ii) under Section 12(l)(c) the tenant had acted adversely and substantially against the interest of the landlord. We are presently concerned with the ground relating to Section 12(l)(c). Since leave is limited only to that ground, what is urged on behalf of the tenant who died pending second appeal in the High court and whose legal representatives have been brought on record is that this is not a case under Section 12(l)(c) will get attracted. The reason is that the tenant had not denied the title of the landlord, he merely ventilated his grievance in as much as he was subject to the payment of rent by Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, for the Chabutara in which the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior claimed ownership. The tenant bona fide thought that the Municipal Corporation by a reason of its demand of rent was the owner. It cannot be said that he had done any act adversely and substantially against the interest of the landlord. (3) WE are unable to agree with this submission. The notice Exbt. D-l clearly brings out as follows: (1 The claim of the landlord that the Chabutara situated in front of the shop is included separately in the tenancy is wrong. (2 The land on which the Chabutara is constructed belongs to the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the superstructure thereon has been built by the tenant at his own cost. (3 The tenants readiness to execute the rent deed in favour of the landlord on condition of the landlord paying the arrears which the tenant was obliged to pay to the Municipal Corporation. (4) THUS, it is clear that the tenant was setting up the title on the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. On this very document it is easy to hold that the tenant had acted adversely and substantially against the interest of the landlord. Therefore, we concur with the findings of the High court and dismiss the Civil. No costs.