IMDAD ALI versus KESHAV CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 19-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

!MOAD ALI 
A 
v. 
KESHA V CHAND AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ, S.B. SINHA AND DR. A.R. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961: 
s. 12(3), proviso-Shop-Tenant committing default in payment of rent-
Availing benefit of proviso to sub-section (3) of s.12-His heirs who inherited C 
the tenancy again committed default-Suit by landlord for eviction-Decreed--
Held, once the father of respondents had availed the benefit of proviso to sub-
s. (3) of s.12, the said benefit was not available to respondent-tenants on 
committing a farther default in payment of rent-When the heirs of a tenant 
acquire benefit under the Act, the same would be subject to such limitation D 
and liability which has been provided under the Act-A successor-in-interest 
holds his tenancy right subject to rights and obligations of his predecessor-
A person by reason of inheritance or assignment does not derive any better 
title than his predecessor, and thus, the right which the original tenant did not 
possess cannot be passed on to his successor. 
Gian Devi Anand -v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 683, 
followed. 
/ 
Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal, [2003] 1 Scale 658; Ba/want 
E 
Singh and Ors. v. Anand Kumar Sharma and Ors., (2003) 2 Scale 71 and 
Damadilal and Ors. v. Parashram and Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 856, referred to. F 
A.S. Sulochana v. C. Dharmalingam, AIR (1987) SC 242, held 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13275 of 
1"~ 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.88 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in S.A. No. 621 of 1988. 
U.N. Bachhawat, Alok Bachhawat and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the 
259 
H 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A Appellant. 
B 
S.K. Gambhir, Awanish Sinha, Rijuraj Singh Jamwad, Anil K. Sharma 
and Vivek Gambir for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered. 
The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to 
whether the heirs of a tenant can be deprived of the benefit of proviso to sub-
section (3) of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control 
Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") if the heirs' father from whom they inherited 
the tenancy rights had availed of the benefit of provisio of sub-section (3) of 
C Section 12 of the Act. This question arises in the following factual background. 
It is not disputed that the appellant herein is the landlord of a shop in 
the town Neemuch. As far back as in the year 1960, one Badri Lal, father of 
respondents took the aforesaid shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. 
D It appears that Badri Lal committed default in payment of arrears of rent with 
the result that the appellant herein brought a suit for eviction on the ground 
of _default in payment of arrears of rent. However, father of the respondents 
claimed benefit of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act and 
deposited the arrears of rent, for this reason, the decree for eviction could not. 
be passed against Badri Lal. It appears subsequently Badri Lal died and the 
E respondents herein being the heirs of Badri Lal inherited the statutory tenancy 
and they became tenant of the said accommodation of which Badri Lal was 
a tenant. It appears that the respondents also committed default in payment 
of rent. The appellant herein brought a suit for eviction of the respondents, 
inter alia, on the ground of bonafide need of the disputed shop as well as on 
the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 
F both the groµnds, and the first appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree. 
G 
However, the High Court, in a second appeal, set aside the judgment of 
courts below. Consequently, the suit stood dismissed. It is against the said 
judgment, the appellant-landlord is in appeal before us. 
We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties. 
Mr. U.N. Bachhawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant 
urged that under the scheme of the Act proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 
12 of the Act confers one time benefit on the tenant and such benefit is not 
available once the tenant already availed of such benefit and it is not open 
H to the heirs of the tenant to avail of such benefit for the second time. Learned 
!MOAD ALI v. KESHA V CHAND 
261 
senior counsel relied upon a decision of this court in Gian Devi Anand v. A 
Jeevan Kumar and Ors., (1985] 2 SCC 683, in support of this proposition. 
We find merit in his submi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.