Keshar Bai vs. Chhunulal, January 7,2014

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court
Briefly,  the facts are that the appellant-landlady purchased House No. 1/2, Street No. 6, Parsi Mohallah, Indore (‘the said building’) from M/s. Pyare Mohan Khar, Hari Mohan Khar, Shayam Sunder Khar and Anil Khar predecessors-in-title of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 26/9/1991 for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. At the time of purchase of the said building, the respondent-tenant was occupying one room (‘suit premises’) situated on the rear side of the said building as tenant. The respondent was informed by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant that the appellant is the new landlady of the said building and he should pay the rent to her. The respondent agreed to pay the rent but failed to pay it. Failure of the respondent to pay the rent resulted in a notice being sent by the appellant to him on 23/11/2002, but despite the notice the respondent did not pay the rent.
On 06/1/2003, the appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (‘the M.P ACT’) on grounds of non-payment of rent, denial of the appellant’s title by the respondent, bona fide need for residential purpose and reconstruction of the said building as it had become unsafe for human habitation. It was specifically averred in the plaint that the appellant had purchased the said building vide a registered document on 26/9/1991.
Decision of Trial Court: ;
The trial court decreed the suit under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act. The suit was dismissed so far as the other grounds are concerned. The trial court’s judgment was confirmed by the first appellate court.
Decision of High Court:
The High Court by the impugned order set aside the eviction decree passed by the courts below holding that in the facts of the case no decree under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P Act could be passed. The controversy, therefore, revolves around Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act in the context of the facts of this case.
Judgment of Supreme Court:
We are of the opinion that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that the respondent had denied the title of the appellant. We are of the view that the present case is covered by Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act. It is, therefore, necessary to restore the decree of eviction. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court and Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act is restored.
The appeal is thus disposed of.