R.C. TAMRAKAR AND ANR. versus NIDI LEKHA

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 192 · Decided: 16-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.C. TAMRAKARANDANR. 
v. 
NIDILEKHA 
OCTOBER 16; 20o"l 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Sections 12 and 13( 1) and 
(5)-Default in payment of rent-Non-payment of rent arrears either prior to 
filing of suit or during its pendency-Payment of the same in the First Appellate 
Court-Effect of-Held, tenant is defaulter since the arrears remained unpaid 
during the pendency of the suit-Hence not entitled to protection under sub-
section (5) of Section 13. 
Bona.fide requirement-Ground for eviction-Determination of-Held, 
in deciding bonafide need extraneous facts need not be taken into considera-
tion-Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. 
· 
Judicial restraint-Subordinate judiciary-Error in judgment-Adverse 
remarks by High Court---'Held, not justified-Hence expunged. 
Respondent-landlady filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of ar-
rears of rent on the ground of bona .fide requirement and non-payment of 
rent. The tenant in his written submission though denied the title of the 
respondent landlady, admitted the same in his evidence. Trial Court held 
that relationship of tenant and landlady existed between the parties and 
hence the landlady had title over the premises; and that the tenant was 
defaulter; and that. the landlady's requirement was bonll .fide. Thus the 
Trial Court decreed the suit. 
First Appellate Court held that the tenant could not be treated as 
defaulter since he had deposited the rent in the ~ppellate court, and that 
the need of the landlady was not bona fide as she could stay in the house of 
her son. 
In second appeal High Court held that the tenant.was defaulter; and 
that the landlady could not be compelled to stay with her son. High Court 
H 
made adverse remarks· against the first appellate court. 
192 
!.1 
R.C. TAMRAKAR v. NIDI LEKHA 
193 
In appeal to this Court, the Presiding Officer of the First Appellate 
A 
Court filed Interlocutory Application for expunging the remarks made by 
the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal and the Interlocutory Application, the Court. 
HELD : 1.1. In view of Section 13(1) and (5) of M.P. Accommodation 
Control Act, 1961, the benefit of sub-section (5) shall be available to a 
tenant provided he tenders the arrears of rent or deposit it in the court 
within one month of service of writ of notice or notice of appeal or any 
other proceeding or within one month of the institution of the appeal or 
any other proceeding by the tenant or within such further time as the court 
may on an application made to it allow in this behalf. [196-A] 
B 
c 
In the instant case since the .tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent 
either prior to filing of the suit or during its pendency before the trial 
court, the finding of the High Court cannot be faulted in view of clear 
D 
provision of sub-section (1) of Section 13 and, therefore, the tenant is not 
entitled to get protection under sub-section (5). [196-B; 196-D] 
1.2. High Court rightly set aside the finding of the first appellate 
court holding that landlady could not be compelled to reside with her so.n. 
While considering the bonafide need of the landlord under the Act, the 
court need not take into consideration extraneous facts. It is for the land- . 
lord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the 
best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the 
bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how 
else the landlord could have adjusted himself. [197-B; 196-H] 
2. Remarks made against the Presiding Officer of the First Appellate 
Court by the High Court are expunged as these were uncalled for. If any 
adverse entry has been recorded in the confidential report of the officer, it 
E 
F 
shall be deleted and treated as washed off from the record. [199~A-B] 
G 
Ishwari Prasad Mishrav. Mohd. Isa, [1963] 3 SCR 722; K.P. Tiww:i v. , 
State of M.P., [1994] Supp. 1 SCC 540; Brc!i Kishoi·e Thakur v. Union of India 
and Ors., [1997] 4 SCC 65 and 'K' A Judicial Officer, [2001] 3 ~CC 54, 
relied on. 
H. 
I 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2784of1997. 
,. f.rom the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.97 of the Madhya Pradesh: 
High Court in S.A. No. 291 of 1993. 
WITH 
B 
I.A. No. 4. 
Shiv· Sagar Tiwari for the Appellants. 
K.M.K .. Nair, Ms. Rach.na Gµpta ,(Nf>) for the R

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