LexCHIMAN LAL versus MISHRILAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
39
CHIMAN LAL
v.
MISHRILAL
November 12, 1984
[R. S. PATHAK, D. P. MADON AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.J
Madhya Pradesh Acco11unodution Control Act, 1961, section 12(l)(a}, scope
of-Notice of demand referred to in section 12(1)(a) to be valid must inter-alia
relate to the acco1nmodation actually rented to the tenant and not any other acco111-
modation-A defective notice vitiates the entire trial as the suit itself is not rnain-
tainable-Distinction between notice and the plaint explained-Amending the plaint
with the pennission of the Court does not cure the defective notice.
The respondent landlord issued a notice dated October 21, 1969 to the
appellant demanding arrears of rent in respect of accommodation, which accor-
ding to the respondent, consisted of a portion of a shop and a verandah and
terminated the tenancy; and he filed a suit for eviction under section 12(1)(a) of
the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act, 1961 and for payment of arrcitrs of
rent totalling Rs. 2,550. The appellant after depositing the entire arrears as
required under section 13(1) of the Act contested the suit disputing the area and
portion of accommodation tenanted and claimed expenditure incurred by him
for repairs. The trial court dismissed the suit accepting the contention of the
appellant that since the respondent has not correctly described the extent of the
premises in the notice tenninating the tenancy, the tenancy had not been validly
terminated. An appeal having been dismissed the respondent filed a second
appeal before the High Court. The High Court granted permission to' the res·
pondent for an amendment of the plaint and relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Amma/1 [19801 1 S.C.R. 334
that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary,
allowed the second appeal. Hence the tenant's appeal after ob'ta:infng Special
Leave of the Court.
Allowing the Appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The notice referred to in seotion !2(1)(a) of the Madhya
A
B
c
D
E
F
Pradesh Acco1nmodation Control Act, 1961 inust be a notice demanding the
G
rental arrears in respect of accommodation actUally let to the tenant. It must
be a notice (a) demanding the arrears of rent in respect of the accommodation
let to the tenant and (b) the ar. ears of rent must be legally recoverable from the
tenant. There can be no a(' mission by a tenant that arrears of rent are due
unless they relate to the acco1ni11odatiori let to hin1. A valid notite demanding
arrear& of.rent relatable ·to the accollllllodation· let to {ho:tenant from whichJio. ,
H .
..
,
Sut>P.EME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 2 S.C.R.
A
is sought to be evicted is a vital ingredient of the conditions \l,rhich govern the
main• 0fnability of the suit, for unless a valid demand is made no complaint can
be laid of non-compliance with it, and consequently no suit for rejectment of the
tenant in respect of the accommodation will lie on that ground. [-1.3 F-H; 44 AJ
1 : 2. It is true that amendment of the plaint in the suit in order to relate
to the accommOdation <isserted by the aprelJant does rela!e back to the institu-
B
tion of the suit, but it cannot amend an invalid notice carli~r issued te[minating
the tenancy. The notice of demand is an act indepen{_:ent of the institution of
the suit. [44 A·B, DJ
The notice and the plaint are two distinct n1alters, different by nature,
designed for different purposes and located in two different roints of time. They
operate in two different planes, and are related insofar only that one is a condi·
C
tion for maintaining the other. [44 B·C]
D
E
F
G
l : 3. The notice of demand dated October 21, 1969 served by the respon·
dent on the appellant was invalid and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
It is clear that there is a substantial difference between the accommodation men·
tioned in the notke and the accon1modation let to the appellant. It must be
taken that the notice relates to acco1nmodation which cannot be effectively iden-
tified with the accommodation constituting the tenancy. This is not a case of a
mere misdefcription of the accommodation v.·here both parties knew perfectly
well that lhe notice referred to accomn1odation let to the tenant. Nor is it a case
where the discrepancy between 1he accommodation alleged by the landlord and
that actually let to the tenant is margiaal or insubstantial. The proceedings
show that there was a serious dispuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.