LexPARWATI BAI versus RADHIKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... PARWATI BAI A v. RA DH I KA MAY I, 2003 [R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] B Rent and Eviction: Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961: c S.3(/)(b)-Non-residential premises belonging to Municipalit)'.- Exemption from applicability of Act-Non-residential Municipal premises- Given on lease to appellant-:Appellant further sub-let it to respondent- Tenancy of respondent terminated by appellant by giving notice uls 106 of the Transfer of Property Act-Suit filed by appellant for non-payment of rent and D her need to occupy it for herself-Both ihe courts below holding that the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act applied to the premises and grounds/or eviction uls 12 thereof were not made out-Appellant's plea that since ownership of premises vests in Municipality, the applicability of Rent Act was not attracted and entitlement for eviction was to be decided under the Transfer of Property Act, rejected-Suit dismissed-High Court dismissed landlord's E appeal in limine--Held, qua the municipality, appellant is the tenant and the respondent is sub-tenant and as between the latter two, appellant is the landlord and respondent is the tenant-if a tenant in municipal premises lets out the premises to another, a suit by the tenant for ejectment of his tenant and arrears of rent would not be governed by the Act as the premises are exempt under s.J(l)(b) of Act though the suit is not between the municipality as F landlord and against its tenant-The singular question to be examined in the present case is whether the tenancy was terminated in accordance with the provisions ofs.106 of the Transfer of Property Act-The receipt of notice by the defendant is admitted in the written statement-The defendant has not raised any specific objection as to the validity of the notice-An objection as G to invalidity or infirmity of notice under s.106 of the Transfer of Property Act should be·raised specifically and ai the earlies/; else it will be deemed to have been waived even if there exists one-It cannot, .therefore, be said that the notice in the present case .n1ffered Ji-om any infirmity-The judgments and decrees of the trial court, first appellate court and the High Court are set IOTI H 1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R. A aside-Instead the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant- respondent is directed to be decreed-Notice-Validity of-Objection regarding-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-s. !06. B Bhatia Cooperative Housing Society ltd. v. D.C. Patel, 11953( 4 SCR 185, relied on. Radheylal Somsingh v. Ratansingh Kishansingh, (1977) MPLJ 335, approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2704 of2000. C From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.99 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.A.No. 289 of 1999. S.S. Khanduja for the Appellant. D Niraj Sharma for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : A suit for eviction filed by the appellant against the respondent has been directed to be dismissed by the two courts below. The High Court has dismissed the landlord's appeal in limine. This is an appeal filed by the E landlord by special leave. Vide notice Exh. P-4 issued on 1.11.1990 and served on 5.11.1990, the appellant terminated the tenancy of the respondent giving the latter more than 15 day's time for vacating the suit premises, whereafter the suit was filed. F Non-payment of rent by the respondent and the need of the plaintiff to occupy the suit premises for herself were pleaded as grounds of eviction. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court formed an opinion that the suit premises were governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'The Act'. for short) and inasmuch as any ground for eviction under Section 12 of the Act was not G made out as the appellant failed in proving the tenant to be a defaulter and the appellant's need for self occupation, the suit was directed to be dismissed. One of the pleas raised by the landlord from the very beginning was that because the ownership in the suit premises vested in the municipality, the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was not attracted and entitlement for eviction was to be decided under the H ..... PARWATI BAI v. RADHIKA 1075 provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1961 only. Both the courts below A held that though the ownership of the premises vests in the municipal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.