LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

DADAN BAI WD/O BHAGCHAND SINDHI versus ARJUNDAS

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 31-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

..._. 
DADAN BAI WD/0 BHAGCHAND SINDHI 
A 
v. 
ARJUNDAS 
MARCH 31, 1995 
(R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Section 23A(b) 
Lesso,--Title not disputed by lessee-Such a lessor is owner at whose 
instance Eviction petition is maintainable. 
C 
The eviction petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High 
Court on the ground that she was not the owner because the premises 
beloliged to the Municipal Corporation. 
Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to High D 
Court, this Court 
HELD: A lessor whose title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoub-
tedly is owner at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were main-
tainable. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the 
decree passed in favour of the appellant. (110-B] 
E 
CIVIL APPELIATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4183 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment aod Order dated 21.7.89 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.No. 481 of 1989. 
F 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpaode aod Pramit Saxena for the Ap-
pellaot. 
S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
G 
Heard counsel for the parties. The eviction petition filed by the 
landlady-lessor was dismissed by the High Court as she was not the owner H 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A since even on her own admission the premises belonged to the Municipal 
Corporation. The word 'owner' used in Section 23-A(b) of M.P. Accom-
modation Control Act has in our opinion been construed narrowly. A 
lessor whose-title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoubtedly is owner 
at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were maintainable. There-
B 
fore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the decree passed in 
favour of the landlord on the ground that since the premises belonged to 
Municipal Corporation, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable. 
The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The matter 
remitted back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance 
C with law and on merits as expeditiously as possible. 
The appeal is disposed of. 
T.N.A. 
Appeal disposed of. 
-
,.. __