LexDAMADILAL AND OTHERS versus PARASHRAM AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
I
•
'
•
DA.t\1ADILAL AND OTHERS
PARASHRAM AND OTHERS
May 7, 1976
645
A
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
B
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-S. 12(1y(a) and (f)
-Scope of-Death of tenant-Heritable interest in the premises-Legal repre~
sentatives-lf could clai1n statutory tenancy-If concept applicable in lndia-
Statutory tenant-If could sub-let the premises.
Rent-Payrnent-1/ could be n1ade by cheque.
.Procedure-Lower appellate court overlooked 1naterial evidence-Finding,
if bad in law-High Court-If could reverse.
Section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Contrnl Act, 1961,
enacts that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
law or contract no suit shall be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his
eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds giVen
in the section. The ground given in cl. (a) is that the tenant has neither paid
nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him
within two months of the date on which the notice had been served on him
by the landlord and the ground in cl. (f) is that the accommodation let for
non.residential purpose is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of
continuing or starting his business.
The appellants brought a suit under s. 12(1 )(a) and (f) of the Act for
ejectment of their tenants. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the
ground (i) that since the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the
tenants had not been determined during the pendency of the suit Under s. 13(2)
no order for eviction could be made; (ii) that there was no bona fide require·
ment of the premises by the appellants for their own business and (iii) that
the refusal by the appellant to accept the arrears of rent by cheque was valid
because tendering by cheque was not valid tender in the absence of an agree·
ment to that effect.
The first appellate court decreed the suit. During the pendency of the
second appeal in the High Court the tenants died. The High Court allowed
substitution of their legal representatives over·ruling the appellants' objection
that the deceased tenants were mere statutory tenants and that the right to
resist eiectment on the basis of the Rent Control Act was merely a personal
right which was not heritable.
On merits, the High Court held that (i) offer
of rent by cheque amounted to valid tender by the Jenant and (ii) the appel·
lants had failed to prove their case of bona fide requirement of the premises
for their own use.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is no force in the contention that the defendants who v.'ere
statutory tenants had no heritable interest in the demised premises- and on
their death the right to prosecute the appeal in the High Court had not
survived to their heirs and legal representatives. The preQecessors·in-interest
of the respondents had a heritable interest in the premises and consequently
the resPondents had the right to prosecute the appeal in the High Court. [655AJ
(I) (a) The concept of statutory tenancy under the E~glish Rent Acts and
under the Indian statutes rests on different foundations.
The term statutory
tenancy which is used for referring to a tenant whose tenancy has been tenni-
nated and who would be liable to be evicted but for the protecting statute, is
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
•
A
B
c
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
borro\Ved from the English Rent Acts.
Courts in England have held that a
statutory tenant h~ no esta.te or property in the premises" he occupies becalliie
he retains possession by virtue of the Rent Acts and not as being entitled
to a tenancy.
But in this country it is not possible to proceed on the basis
that a tenant whose contractual tenancy has determined but who is protected
a~ainst evicti~n ~Y the sta~ute, ~as no right ~f. property b,ut only a person •. 'll
right to remain m occupation \VIthout ascerta1n1ng wha·t his rights are under
the statute.
[654H: 653A-C]
Anand /ilivas (Private) Litnited v. Anandji Kalyanji Ped/ii & Ors. [1964] 4
SCR 892; Jagdish Chander Chatter{ee and Ors. v. Sri Kishan & Anr., [1973] 1
S.C.R. 850; Roe v. Russel. f!928l 2 K.B. 117: Haskins v. Lewis [1931] 2 K.B_
1(9); Keeves v. Dean [1923] (93) L.J.K.B. 203 (207) and Boyer v. Warbe~·
[1953] 2 Q.B. 234, referred to.
(b) Tenancy has its origin in contract. A contractual tenant had an
estate or property in the sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.