HASMAT RAJ & ANR. versus RAGHUNATH PRASAD

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 28-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
.. 
605 
HASMAT RAJ & ANR. 
v. 
RAGHUNATH PRASAD 
April 28, 1981 
[D.A. DESAI, R.S. PATHAK AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Scope of section 12( I) 
(f)-Bonafide requirement under section 12(1}(f}-Landlord filing two eviction 
suits and acquiring possession of a major portion of the suit premises through an 
eviction order passed in one of them-Whether this acquisition amounts to the 
landlord "has a reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own 
in his occupation in the city or town concerned" within the meaning of section 
12(I)(f) of the Act-Noticing of such event subsequent to the passing of the 
decreefor eviction in the other eviction suit, whether a must by the Court-
P.ropriety of refusal of leave to amend the written statement under order VT rule 17 
Civil Procedure Code by the High Court. 
The respondent-landlord filed two eviction suits for recovery of possession 
of a non-residential building which were in occupation of a finn Goraldas Parma-
nand and the appellant-tenant. 
The portion occupied by.the appellant including 
the frontage was 7 'x221. In the view of the fact that the landlord obtained eviction 
order against the firm Goraldas Parmanand on the ground th at the building was 
required for the purPose of reconstruction and repairs and also for bona fide 
requirement, in the later eviction suit filed a~ainst the appellant, in para 4 of the 
plaint the landlord stated that he was in possession of a major portion of the 
non-residential building which he obtained from the firm M/s. Goraldas Parma-
nand, The appellant contested the eviction suit filed against him on the ground, 
(a) that the premises was not in dilapidated condition and did not, therefore, 
~ need reconstruction and repairs and (b) that the landlord in view of his own 
admission in the plaint at para 4 has a reasonable suitable non-residential 
accommodation of his own and therefore cannot claim his eviction under section 
(12)(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 
The trial court rejected the tenant's pleas and passed an eviction order. In 
appeal the first appellate court, while confirming the finding of the trial court that 
the building was in a dilapidated condition and required re-construction and 
repairs, held that even though the landlord obtained a decree against the firm 
Goraldas Parmanand, he had not got actual possession, as the litigation was still 
pending and, therefore, the plaintiff's requirements of the whole building was 
established. 
In the second appeal before the High' Court, an application under Order 
VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, was made praying for an amendment to 
the written statement alleging that the firm Goraldas Parmanand has vacated the 
entire portion of the premises in his possession and the plaintiff-landlord has 
obtained actual possession of a major portion of the building and if this aspect 
was taken into consideration the plaintiff-landlord would not be entitled to a 
decree for eviction under section 12(1 )(f) of the Act. The High Court rejected 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S,C.R. 
the application observing that the adjoining portion occupied by-firm Goraldas 
Parmanand was vacated by the firm as for back as in the year 1972 and, there-
fore, the application for amendment filed 3·1/2 years after ·the filing of the [second 
appeal must be rejected. Further it was of the view that the definition of 
"tenant" in the· Madhya Pradesh Act would not enable a tenant, though in 
possession but against whom a decree or order for eviction has been made, to 
invite the court to take notice of events subsequent to the passing of the decree 
for eviction by the trial court. The High Court, accordingly confirmed the 
decree for eviction. hence, the appeal by the tenant after obtaining special leave 
of the Court. 
..... ~ 
• 
• • 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the first appellate court 
Z" 
with directions, the Court 
HELD : I. Before an allegation of fact to obtain the relief required is 
permitted to be proved, the law of pleadings require that such facts have to be 
alleged and must be put in issue. Any amount of proof offered without pleadings 
is generally of no relevance. In order to be able to seek eviction of a tenant 
under section 12(1l(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommoaation Control Act, 1961, 
the landlord has to allege and es

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