Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 129 (MP)

Ashok Gupta v. Layak Chand

2018-01-31

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2018
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.4.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.139- A/2014 by the Court of learned 4th Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior, whereby, an application field by the plaintiff under Order 23 rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of suit against defendants No.2 and 4 on the ground that they have compromised the matter with the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the master of the suit and it is his domain as to with whom he wants to compromise the suit and against whom he wants to continue the suit. Therefore, the trial Court erred in denying the compromise against defendants No.2 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on section 16 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Act”) to point out that under certain cases sub-tenant can be treated as tenant and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to compromise the suit vis-a-vis defendants No.2 and 4. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3, on the other hand, submits that there is no error or imperfection in the impugned order and in fact plaintiff is a blackmailer who has filed a depicting property of the defendant No.1 to be his own property and had made specific averments in the plaint Annexure P/2 that plaintiff's father had purchased said property through a registered sale deed from one Dr. R.G. Dhumal on 8.12.1973 and his father had executed a Will in favour of his wife Smt. Mayadevi, on the basis of which, Mayadevi became owner of the property on death of his father on 24.7.1975. His mother died on 23.3.1995 and he being the son on the strength of the will of the mother dated 9.3.1994, has become owner of the property. 4. It is submitted that as per the plaintiff's case, his mother be inducted defendant No.1 as a tenant and further the other defendants are sub-tenants to defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that without converting the suit with defendant No.1 it could not have been compromised with defendants No.2 and 4, who are allegedly sub-tenants and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 23 rule 1 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that without converting the suit with defendant No.1 it could not have been compromised with defendants No.2 and 4, who are allegedly sub-tenants and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 23 rule 1 CPC. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Uma Devi and another v. Nagarpalika, as reported in 1999(II) MPJR 487 , wherein the ratio is that withdrawal of a suit with permission to file fresh suit cannot be granted as a matter of right but plaintiff has to satisfy the Court of good grounds for withdrawal with liberty to file said suit. On this reasoning, it is submitted that the trial Court has rightly denied application under Order 23 rule 1 CPC. 5. A perusal of section 16 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, reads as under:- “16. Sub-tenant to be tenant in certain cases- (1) Where an order for eviction in respect of any accommodation is made under section 12 against a tenant but not against a sub-tenant referred to in section 15 and a notice of the sub-tenancy has been given to the landlord, the sub-tenant shall, with effect from the date of the order, be deemed to become a tenant holding directly under the landlord in respect of the accommodation in his occupation on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the landlord, if the tenancy had continued. (2) Where, before the commencement of this Act, the interest of a tenant in respect of any accommodation has been determined without determining the interest of any sub-tenant to whom the accommodation either in whole or in part had been lawfully sub-let, the sub-tenant shall, with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the landlord, if the tenancy had continued.” 6. Thus, it is apparent that sub-tenant can be deemed to be a tenant only when an order for eviction in respect of any accommodation is made under section 12 of the Act against the tenant but not against a sub-tenant referred to in section 15 of the Act. Thus, it is apparent that sub-tenant can be deemed to be a tenant only when an order for eviction in respect of any accommodation is made under section 12 of the Act against the tenant but not against a sub-tenant referred to in section 15 of the Act. In the present case, when there is no order of eviction against the tenant i.e. the defendant No.1, section 16 of the Act has no application in the present case. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity calling for any interference and thus the petition fails and is dismissed.