ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA versus VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 28-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA 
v. 
VIJA Y KUMAR AGRA WAL 
FEBRUARY 28, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND 
DORAISWAMY RAW, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 8, r. 6--Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain proceeding for 
eviction of tenant u/s 12(J)(e) of MP. Accommodation Control Act-Tenant 
filing suit for injunction against landlord-Counter claim by landlord seeking 
eviction of tenant uls 12(J)(e) of the Act-On ground of bona fide 
requirement-Tenant resisting counter claim as not maintainable contending 
D that in view ofS.23-A of the Act, civil court had no jurisdiction to pass decree 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of eviction on ground of bona fide requirement-Held, civil court rightly 
•
entertained counter claim uls 12(l)(e) of the Act and decree passed by it is 
>--
not vitiated for want of jurisdiction. 
MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 
Ss. 11-A, 12, 23-A, 23-J and 45-Jurisdiction of civil court-Suit for 
eviction of tenant-On ground of bona fide requirement-Held, civil court 
has jurisdiction to entertain a suit and pass decree uls 12(J)(e) in regard to 
bona fide personal requirement of landlord who does not fall in the specified 
·~ 
categories in S.23-J 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 6321 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.99 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Hi~h Court in S.A. No. 621 of 1998. 
S.S. Khanduja for the Appellanat. 
A.K. Chitale and Niraj Sharma for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
138 
A.K. GUPTA v. V.K. AGRAWAL 
139 
The appellant is the tenant of the premises - I st Floor, 46 M.L.B. A 
Colony, Gwalior (M.P.) (for short 'the accommodation') which was initially 
owned by one Sushi! Kumar who sold it to the respondent. Thus, the 
appellant became the tenant of the respondent. The appellant filed a suit 
against the respondent being Case No. 453A of 1996 in the court of 9th 
Civil Judge, II Class, Gwalior, seeking injunction against the respondent. B 
In the said suit the respondent filed a counter claim under Order VIII, 
Rule 6 of C.P.C. claiming eviction of the appellant, inter alia, under 
clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation 
Control Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant contested the counter 
claim filed by the respondent and pleaded that it was not maintainable. 
The trial court, after framing necessary issues and on considering the C 
evidence adduced by the parties held that the counter claim under Order 
Vlll, Rule 6 of C.P.C. was maintainable and that the respondent required 
the suit premises bona fide. Accordingly, it decreed the counter claim of 
the respondent and dismissed the suit for the relief of injunction filed by 
the appellant by judgment dated January 31, 1998. In regard to the decree 
of eviction passed on the counter claim of the respondent, an appeal was D 
filed by the appellant before the court of the 6th Additional District Judge, 
Gwalior (M.P.). The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings 
of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on October 8, 1998. Against 
that judgment the unsuccessful appellant filed Second Appeal No. 621 of 
1998 before the High Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed by the E 
High Court by judgment dated March 15, 1999 which is assailed in this 
appeal by special leave. 
Mr. S.S. Khanduja, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends 
that in view of the provisions of Chapter III-A the counter claim ought 
not to have been entertained by the Civil Court and that the respondent F 
should have filed independent case in the court of the Rent Controller so 
the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Mr. A.K. Chitale, the 
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has argued that Chapter 
III-A which was inserted in the Act in 1983, was later amended and 
confined to specified landlord, defined in Section 23-J thereunder, and as G 
such the Civil Court rightly entertained the counter claim with regard to 
eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need for occupation 
as residence. 
We may observe that maintainability of counter claim under Order 
VIII. Rule 6 of C.P.C. is not canvassed before us. The discussion centered H 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A round the jurisdiction of Civil Court to pass decree of eviction on the 
ground of bona fide requirement in the face of Section 23-A of the Act. 
On the contentions urged before us the question that arises for 
consideration is : wheth

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.