LexSHYAM CHARAN versus SHEOJI BHAI & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 710 SHY AM CHARAN v. SHEOJI BHAI & ANOTHER October 12, 1977 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Accomfnodation Control Act, 1961, s. 2(1) (d) read with s. 51(1)(2) of 1955 Act-Places of e11tertai11111e11t were excluded fro1n the defi- nition of s. 2(i) under the 1955 Act but made applicable under the Act of 1961 which ca1ne into force on 30th Dece111ber 1961-Whether the benefit under the Act of 1961 wifl apply to earlier suit initiated under the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant was the lessee of the premises "Jairam 'fheatre" in the town of Raipur and his lease expired on May 21, 1960. Since the appellant did not vacate the premises on the expiry ot the lease by efflux of time u/s. 111 (a) of the 'J'ransfer of Property Act, the respondent-landlord filed a suit against the appel- lant on June 25, 1960 for eviction, rent and 1nesne profits. The trial court passed the decree for eviction on November _3, 1962. The High Cou_rt dis- missed the appeal on February 26, 1964 which was affirmed by this Court on September 25, 1964. The appellant vacated the suit premises on October 4, 1964. In the proceedings for fixation of mesne profits, the trial court awarctea a fin~·! decree for mesne profits at Rs. 4,000/- per n1onth fron1 the date or determination of the lease, i.e., from ?v1ay 22, 1960 to October 4, 1964. The High Court affirmed the·.t.decree. In appeal by certificate the appellant con- tended, (i) that according to the definition of th~ "Jenant" in cl. (1) of s. 2 of the 1\.1adhya Pradesh Control Act, 1961, the appellant, even after the termi- nation of the lease, continued in ~session of the accommodation as a "tenant'' under the Act \Vhich is conveniently called a statutory tenant. The occupation of the accommodation by the appellant becariie Unauthorised and wrongfril on anil from November 3, 1962 when a decree for eviction was passed by the Trial Court and not before that. 1\.-Iesne profits could be awardet.l only from the said date; and (ii) that the courts belo\v \Vere not justified in awarding damages at Rs. 4,000/- per month when the agreed rent' as per the lease \Vas only Rs. 1600/- per month. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD : ( 1) The definition of the term "tenant" in s. 2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accon1niodation Control Act, 1961 is retro-active in the sense that it embraces within its ambit even a person who continued in possession of the accommodation after the tern1ination of his tcriancy, whether the said termina- tion was before or after the commencement of the Act. It \vould apply and was meant to cover a case where the contractual tena•ncy terminated before the com- mencement o[ the 1961 Act, but the suit was filed after the commencement. In the instant case, the suit in question was not filed under the Act of 1955 because the accommodation- was exemrit fron1 the operation of that Act. The suit filed in accordance \Vith the Transfer of Property Act continued to govern the rights and Iiahilites even after the c..oming into force of the Act. The retroactivity or retrospectivity of the definition of the term "tenant" was not sufficient to make the appellant a tenant Within Hie meaning of the l\.fadhv:1 Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. His continuance in occupation of the accommodation on and from 22nd Mav 1960 was unauthorised and \Vrongful and a decree focdamages or mesne profits.has rightly been awarded. f712 CJ-H, 713 A-DJ Sn1t. Chander Kali Bai & Ors. v. Sllri Jagdis/; SinJ,:h Thakur, [1978] (l) SCR 625, distinguished. H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 704 of 1971. From the Judgment and Decree dated 4-11-1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Cou~t in First Appeal No. 37 of 1967. - ' • SHYAM CHARAN v. SHEOJI BHAI (Untwalia, J.) 711 M. M. Phadke, I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for the Appellant. M. C. Bhandare and K. J. John for Respondent No. I. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by- UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by certificate from the decision of lhe Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming the final decree of mesne pro- A fits made by the Trial Court in favour of respondent no. 1 (hereinafter B called the respondent) against the appellant. Only a few facts are neces- sary to be stated. The respondent was the landlord of the premises known as Jairam Theatre in the town of Raipur. The appellant was given a lease of the said property by the respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.