Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 111 (CHH)

PARASRAM v. SHANTILAL

2013-03-19

N.K.AGARWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This is defendants/tenants' Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 15th October, 1997 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No. 52-A/1997. 2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this appeal are that: the landlords/plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellants under Ss. 12(1)(a), 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(i) of the M.P./CG. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The suit was decreed by the trial Court under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.1991 in Civil Suit No.2-A/85. 4. The tenants filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. The Landlords also preferred a cross-objection. 5. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, set aside the trial Court's decree passed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, however, having found the case has been made out by the plaintiffs for grant of decree under Section l2(1)(i) of the Act, allowed the cross-objection and decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(i) of the Act. Hence, this appeal. 6. This Court, vide order dated 28.1.1998 admitted the appeal for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: i. "Whether, in view of the fact that the respondents had claimed the suit house for establishing a Rubber Roller Mill in the suit house, he is entitled to evict the appellants under Section 12(1)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? ii. Whether, in view of the fact that both the parties have gone to trial on the assumption that the suit property was let out for: business purpose, a decree under Section 12(1)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 could be passed under that Act?" 7. Section 12(1)(i) of the Act reads as under: "12. Restrictions on eviction of tenants.- (I) 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: . xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (i) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or, been allotted an accommodation suitable for his residence;" 8. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (i) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or, been allotted an accommodation suitable for his residence;" 8. Reading of this provision makes it clear that this clause is in three parts, viz, (i) if the tenant has before or after the commencement of this Act, built an accommodation suitable for his residence; (ii) if the tenant has acquired vacant possession of; or (iii) been allotted an accommodation suitable for his residence. No phrase is used in this sub-clause to indicate that it should further be established that it is available for occupation. Apparently if such was the provision, it would be meaningless, because even if a tenant builds his own house, he may choose to let it out and still say that it is not available to him if it is a profitable proposition. 9. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the appellants have constructed a two storeyed house in the year 1982, i.e., after commencement of the Act of 1961 and also after commencement of tenancy. 10. The landlord may seek eviction on several grounds available to him under various clauses of Section 12(1) of the Act and if he proves anyone of them, he is entitled for eviction decree. Therefore, if he failed to prove his bona fide need within the meaning of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, it cannot be said that he is not entitled for a decree under Section 12(1)(i) of the Act and the first substantial question of law is answered accordingly in respondents' favour. 11. So far as second substantial question of law framed is concerned, admittedly, the suit premises was let out by the respondents to the appellants for residential purposes. It is also trite law, a premises let out for residential purposes cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes, therefore, the Courts below have rightly declined to grant decree on the ground of 12(1)(f) of the Act. It is also trite law, a premises let out for residential purposes cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes, therefore, the Courts below have rightly declined to grant decree on the ground of 12(1)(f) of the Act. However, it does not mean that it will change the nature and character of the suit accommodation from residential to non-residential and in view of above, it cannot be said that parties have gone to trial on the assumption that the suit premises was let out for business purpose and a decree under Section 12(1)(i) of the Act could not be passed and the substantial question of law No.2 is answered accordingly in respondents' favour. 12. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the appellants are granted two months' time to vacate the suit premises subject to their furnishing undertaking to vacate the suit premises within above period before the trial Court. 13. No order as to costs. 14. A decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.