Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 15 (CHH)

Madhu Bai v. Setram

2011-01-18

N.K.AGARWAL

body2011
ORDER N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-2-1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 31-A/1995 by the Additional District Judge, Sakti arising out of the judgment and decree dated 7-4-1995 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Sakti in Civil Suit No. 76-A/1992 whereby Plaintiffs suit for eviction of Respondent and deceased Babulal was dismissed. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under: 2. The suit property earlier belonged to one Rama Kumari Verma D/o. Gokul Prasad Verma situated within the municipal limits of Sakti town. In para 3 of the plaint, it is pleaded that on one part of the suit premises the Appellant was tenant of its earlier owner Rama Kumari Verma and in other part, the Respondent was her tenant. The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from Rama Kumari Verma for a consideration of Rs. 56,500/- vide registered sale deed dated 19-7-1990 and since then he became owner of the property. Execution of the registered sale deed was also informed to the Defendant/Appellant. Since the Appellant did not vacate the premises even after request, the suit for eviction of Appellant was filed. The Appellant filed her written statement and denied any tenancy with Rama Kumari Verma and claimed title in herself by way of adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit by holding that the Defendant/Appellant has failed to prove adverse possession. The above decree was affirmed by the first appellate court. Hence this second appeal. 3. The appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court on 12-3-1997 on the following substantial question of law: Whether a decree for possession could have been granted by the courts below in respect of the suit house without there being any ground under Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act? 4. Shri H.S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit, as per Plaintiff himself, the Defendant is in occupation of the suit premises in her capacity as Plaintiffs tenant. The suit premises is situated within the municipal limits of Sakti town where provisions of M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act (briefly 'the Act') are applicable. The suit was not filed against the Appellant by her on one or more of the grounds available under Section 12(1) of the Act. Therefore, the suit being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed. 5. The suit premises is situated within the municipal limits of Sakti town where provisions of M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act (briefly 'the Act') are applicable. The suit was not filed against the Appellant by her on one or more of the grounds available under Section 12(1) of the Act. Therefore, the suit being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sunil Otwani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the judgment and decree and would submit that no question of law arises for determination in this second appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree and records of both the courts below. 7. Indisputably, the suit premises is situated within the municipal limits of Sakti town where the provision of the M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act are applicable. Section 12(1) of the Act reads as under: 12. Restrictions on eviction of tenants.: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: xxx xxx xxx 8. The above provision creates an absolute bar for filing of any suit for eviction against the tenant save as provided under Section 12(1)(a) to 12(1)(p); of the Act. A bare perusal of the judgment and decree of both the courts below would reveal that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the Appellant and the Respondent and the Plaintiffs suit was not on any of the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1) of the Act. It is well settled that a tenant cannot be evicted unless one of the ground under Section 12 of the Act is established by the landlord and the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act are mandatory in nature. 9. In view of the above legal position which goes to the root of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the suit itself filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable and the question formulated is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable. However, the Plaintiff is at liberty to pursue his remedy under the provisions of C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 11. Decree be drawn accordingly. 12. Parties shall bear their own costs.