DHANNALAL versus KALAWATIBAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 08-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DHANNALAL 
A 
v. 
KALA WA TIBAI AND ORS. 
JULY 8, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTJ AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: 
c 
Sections 23-A (b) and 12-Eviction suit-Appropriate forums-landlord 
to take recourse to eviction through Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter 
III-A of the Act or to file eviction suit under Section 12 in the Civil Court -
Three co-landlords, one widow and her two major sons filing eviction 
applications, widow-landlady pleading bonafide requirement, requiring suit D 
premises for business purposes of co-landlords-Co-landlords being major 
sons of the landlady, such bonafide requirement falls within purview of section 
23-A (b), thus forum of Rent Controlling Authority available to the landlords 
to seek eviction-Also , the law does not prevent the co-owner/landlords from 
joining together to sue on the cause of action common to them all-Choice of 
forum to seek eviction must of necessity be left open to the owners, otherwise E 
they will be left without remedy. 
Sectfon 23-A (b)-Eviction-On ground of bonafide requirement of 
landlord-Landlord owing no other reasonably suitable alternative 
accommodation, filing eviction applications-Rent Controlling Authority and 
High Court being satisfied with the bonafide requirement of landlord and F 
also that the landlord having no suitable alternate accommodation, allowing 
eviction application-On appeal held, eviction order justified 
Original owner of the property inducted appellants as tenants in two 
shops for non-residential purpose. After owners' death, property devolved G 
upon the respondents being his widow and two sons. Respondents then 
filed application before the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-
A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction on the 
ground of bonafide requirement. Respondent No.l pleaded that respondent 
No.2 required one shop for starting his business and respondent No.3 
19 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A required other shop for shifting his business from rented place. 
Applications were allowed. Aggrieved, appellants filed revision petition 
under section 23-E and they were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
The questions that arose in these appeals was whether the forum of 
Rent Controlling Authority was available to the respondents under 
B Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 or they were 
required to have recourse to the jurisdiction of Civil Court by filing suits 
for eviction under Section 12 of the Act and whether the landlords have 
succeeded in making out case of bonafide requirement of the suit premises 
within the meaning of Section 23-A (b) of the Act. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. A widow, who is a co-owner and landlady of the premises 
can in her own right initiate proceedings for eviction under Section 23-A 
(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 without joining other 
D co-owners/co-landlords as party to the proceedings if they do not object 
to the initiation of proceedings by such landlady, because she is the owner 
of the property and requires the tenanted accommodation for the purpose 
of continuing or starting the business of any of her major sons. The major 
sons though co-owners/co-landlords may not have been joined as party to 
the proceedings but it would not adversely affect the maintainability of 
E the proceedings. The presence of such co-landlords, as co-plaintiffs or co-
applicants, as are not classified landlords as defined in Section 23-J of the. 
Act does not alter the nature of claim preferred by the widow landlady 
and, therefore, does not take the proceedings out of the scope of Sectioc 
23-A (b). Their presence in the pro~eedings is suggestive of their 
F 
concurrence with the widow landlady maintaining the proceedings in her 
own right. Conversely, the major sons or any of them suing alone without 
joining a widow co-landlord as party to the proceedings may institute a 
suit before a Civil Court under Section 12 of the Act pleading that the 
non-residential premises were required bonafide by them for the purpose 
of continuing or starting their own or his own business as they would be 
G owners thereof and the requirement will be theirs. 1t would not make any 
material difference if the widow co-landlord was joined as party to the 
proceedings either as plaintiff or as co-applicant because the case pleaded 
in 'the plaint would squarely fal

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