LexKUSUM DEVI versus MOHAN LAL (DEAD) BY LRS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 606 !<- ~ -- A . ' KUSUM DEVI v. MOHAN LAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. (Civil Appeal No. 2876 of 2001) B APRIL 8, 2009 [B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL. ACT, 1961: c ss.12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) - Suit for eviction on both the : grounds - Under Clause (e) for persot]al requirement for I residential purposes as also under Clause (g) for carrying out I repairs due to premises having become unsafe for human D habitation - Held: There is no provision in the Act preventing > °'- a landlord from raising grounds enumerated under Clauses (e) and (g) together in a suit for eviction - Court is required to consider both the grounds on merits as they are mutually exclusive but not destructive of each other - In the instant E case, trial court and first appellate court having found the requirements of suit premises by landlady under Clauses (e) and (g) proved, rightly granted decree of eviction under both the clauses. ss. 17 and 18 - Applicability of - HELD: In case decree .l.- F for eviction is passed only under clause (e) of s.12(1), provisions of s. 17 would apply- But if eviction is ordered under clause (g) alone, s.18 would apply- However, where decree is passed under Clauses (e) and (g) both, it shall be deemed to have been passed mainly under Clause (e) and, therefore, G provisions of s. 17 would apply and not of s. 18. Appellant's suit for eviction was decreed by the trlal court, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide need for _i.• residential purpose uls 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh H 606 L KUSUM DEVI v. MOHAN LAL (DEAD) BY L.RS. 607 - ~ Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as also u/s 12(1)(g) for A ·~ carrying out repairs in the suit'premises as it had become unsafe for human habitation. The first appellate court affirmed the decree. In the second appeal filed by the respondent-tenant, the High Court set aside the decree passed by both the courts below as in its opinion no B ~~ decree could be granted if the grounds enumerated under Clauses (e) and (g) of s.12(1) of the Act, were taken together in a suit for eviction and in such a case both the claims could not be held to be bona fide. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1. What is to be ascertained by the court in a suit for eviction under Clauses (e) and (g) of s.12(1) of .., the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 .r---" is the bona fide requirement of the landlord; under Clause D (e) for own occupation and under clause (g} for carrying out repairs, etc. in the suit premises. If, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led, the court is satisfied that the landlord has established his bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his own occupation or for any E member of his family under Clause (e}, it may order eviction of tenant under the said clause. There is no provision in the Act preventing a landlord from raising grounds enumerated under clauses (e) and (g) of sub- -J. section (1) of s.12 of the Act together in a suit for eviction. F Once the bona fide requirement under Clause (e) is held to have been proved, the mere fact of having simultaneously pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises, having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, are bona fide required for carrying out repairs, G which could not be done without the premise$ being vacated, does not affect the bona fide requirement of a ~ landlord under Clause (e). Therefore, once bona fide requirement of a landlord for own occupation stands established and a decree for eviction is granted under the H 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A relevant provision, it is well within the right of the landlord to either move to the building without or after carrying out repairs. [Para 9 and 14] [616-C, D; 620-E-H] 1.2. In a case where eviction has been sought both 8 on the grounds of bona fide requirement by the landlord for occupation of the premises for himself or any member of his family, as required under s.12(1)(e) of the Act and for carrying out repairs, as enumerated under s.12(1 )(g) of the Act, the court is required to consider both the grounds on merits, as they are mutually exclusive, but not C destructive of each other. In case decree for eviction is passed only under Clause (e), the landlord would be entitled to move into the premises without or after making any repairs, and the provisions of s.17 of the Act would apply. But if t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.