SHAKUNTALA BAI AND ORS. versus NARAYAN DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAKUNTALA BAI AND ORS. 
v. 
NARAYAN DAS AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2004 
B 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 : 
C 
S.12(J)(j)-Non-residential premises-Suit for eviction on ground of 
bonafide requirement of landlord-Decreed-Pending appeal plaintiff 
died-His heirs amended plaint and pleaded their bonafide requirement-
High Court holding that with death of original plaintiff personal need of 
bona fide requirement came to an end-Held, bonafide need of landlord 
D has to be examined on the date of institution of proceedings and if decree 
for eviction is passed, death of landlord thereafter will make no difference 
and heirs are entitled to defend the estate. 
E 
Administration of Justice-Rent Control cases-Expeditious disposal 
of-Emphasized. 
Maxim-- 'actus curiae neminem gravabit '-Applicability of 
A suit was filed under s.12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for eviction of the tenant from a 
F 11ommercial premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the 
plaintiff-landlord. The suit was decreed. During the pendency of the 
11ppeal filed by the tenant the landlord died and bis heirs and 
legal representatives sought an amendment of the plaint pleading their 
bona fide requirement. The tenant also sought an amendment of his 
G pleadings to the effect that after death of the original plaintiff his plea 
o,f bona fide requirement came to an end. The appellate court allowed 
the amendments and remanded the suit to the trial court. The suit was 
d,ismissed by the trial court but was decreed by the first appellate court. 
However, in the second appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit 
H holding that on the death of the original plaintiff his heirs could not 
114 
t' 
SHAKL1NTALA BAI v.N. DAS 
115 
have continued the suit which was based on personal bona fide A 
need. Aggrieved, the heirs of the original plaintiff filed the present 
appeal. 
On the question : whether on account of death of a landlord 
pending appeal, the suit validly instituted by him for eviction of a B 
tenant on the ground of his personal need, is liable to be dismissed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The legal position is well settled that the bona fide C 
need of the landlord has to be examined as on the date of institution 
of proceedings and if a decree for eviction is passed, the death of the 
landlord during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the tenant 
will make no difference as his heirs are fully entitled to defend the 
estate. [123-D-E) 
G.G. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin, [2002) I SCC 610, relied on. 
D 
Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal, [1997) 4 SCC 413; 
Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, [2001) 2 SCC 604 and Shanti/al 
Thakordas v. Chimanlal Magan/al Telwala, [1976) 4 sec 417, relied on. E 
Smt. Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, AIR (1973) SC 2IIO, 
referred to. 
1.2. A suit validily filed cannot be scuttled or held no longer F 
maintainable in absence of any specific provision to that effect. The bar 
created by virtue of s.12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 
1961 is against filing of the suit except on one of the grounds 
enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) of the sub-section. Therefore, what is 
to be seen is whether the suit was validly filed, i.e., whether on the date G 
of filing of the suit one of the grounds was made out. Therefore, the 
principle that "the need of the landlord must exist till the decree for 
eviction is passed by the last court and attains finality" can even 
otherwise have no application here in view of the express language used 
in section 12(1) of the Act. (125-A-B) 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
P. v Papanna v. K Padmanabhaiah, [1994) 2 sec 316, explained 
and held inapplicable. 
Observations regarding taking into consideration the events 
subsequent to filing of eviction petition, held to be obiter and not 
B representing correct legal position. (124-F-G) 
1.3. It is well settled that when amendment is allowed, the 
proceedings have to be decided on the basis ofsuch amended pleadings. 
Oesides, after the case had been remanded, the plaint had been 
amended and the need of the sons had been set up who had all attained 
C majority by that time. The Courts thereafter proceeded to decide the 
controversy on the ,basis of the need of the sons and the lower appellate 
court, after finding their need to be bona fide, passed a decree for 
eviction in their favour. It was

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