HEERA TRADERS versus KAMLA JAIN

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 22-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
   [2022] 10 S.C.R. 291
291
HEERA TRADERS
v.
KAMLA JAIN
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5996-5997 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
[K. M JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ. ]
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13 –
When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction–
Interpretation of – Held: Even though s.13 does refer to the erstwhile
tenant as a tenant and it obliges him to deposit throughout the
proceedings, the amounts, which can be treated as the rent being
paid, which would be contractual rent or even the rent fixed as the
standard rent, this does not, by itself, alter the effect of the Decree/
Order of eviction passed by the Court, by which, he stood deprived
of the status of a tenant – Filing of an appeal or other proceeding
by the tenant, does not make the decree inexecutable – Payment of
the amounts u/s.13(1) or s.13(2), does not, by itself, bring about
the stay of the decree or order of eviction – By making the payments,
contemplated in s.13(1) or s.13(2), the erstwhile tenant, who stood
deprived of the status of a tenant, does not regain the said status by
mere reason of the fact that in s.13, he is referred to as the tenant –
The position of the erstwhile tenant under the Act, going by the
definition in s.2(i) of the Act, will continue to hold the field, even
after an appeal or other proceeding is maintained by him – Therefore,
s.13 despite the unique provision contained therein, does not affect
the position at law, which stands declared in Atma Ram case –With
the Decree of Eviction being passed, the erstwhile statutory tenant
becomes an unauthorised occupant – The fact that the law permits
the defendant to file an appeal or to take other proceedings, will
not clothe him with rights as a tenant – The fact that the finality of
the Decree of Eviction is attained at a later stage, will not be
sufficient to extricate him from his position as an unauthorised
occupant in the interregnum –During such interregnum, the erstwhile
tenant, being in the position of an unauthorised occupant, becomes
liable to pay mesne profits – Even after the substitution of s.13, it
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
would be open to the Appellate Court to impose the condition that
appellant seeking to contest the Decree of Eviction, shall deposit a
reasonable sum, which is not to be limited to the agreed rent– Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5.
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13
(prior to its substitution in the year 1983) – Impact of – Discussed.
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13 –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5 – Plea of the appellants-
tenants that s.13 of the Act, being a special law, the power under
Or. XLI r.5, cannot be exercised to direct deposit or payment of
mesne profits – Held: Not acceptable – Compliance with s.13 by the
appellants, does no amount to a stay of the Decree for Eviction –
The power of the Appellate Court to impose conditions for staying
the Decree, cannot be confined by the dictate in s.13 of the Act, to
the appellants/tenants, to deposit the agreed rent, particularly, having
regard to the time consumed in litigation and, more importantly, the
impact of the Decree of Eviction, depriving the appellant of his
status as a tenant.
Interpretation of Statutes – Heading of a section – Held: The
heading of a section cannot control the construction of the provision
itself – The provision, as it unfolds under the heading, must be given
the full meaning according to the principles of interpretation, which
the court is persuaded to apply – The only area where the heading
may be useful is when the provision is shrouded in ambiguity – The
heading may shed some light, however, faint it may be.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Let us first analyse the impact of Section 13, as
it stood prior to its substitution in the year 1983. Section 12(1)(a)
confers a right upon the landlord to seek eviction on the ground
of the tenant falling into arrears of rent and remaining in arrears
even after service of a notice of a demand. The default should
persist for two months from the service of demand. The demand
must relate to arrears of rent not barred by time. This is a ground
available under Section 12(1)(a). It constitutes a cause of action
for seeking eviction. However, Section 12(3) provided and
continues to provide that no Order for the Eviction of a tenant
shall be made on the ground under Secti

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