SOBHAGYAMAL & ANR. versus GOPAL DAS NIKHRA

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 22-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 243 
--./' 
SOBHAGYAMAL & ANR. 
A 
v. 
GOPAL DAS NIKHRA 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1839-1840 of 2004) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2008 
B 
[P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
'"'" 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - c 
ss. 12(1 )(a}, 12(3), 13(5) and 13(6) - Restriction on eviction of 
tenants - Decree for ejectment on the ground of bonafide 
necessity - Tenant given benefit of s.12(3) and decree for 
ejectment not passed on the ground of arrears of rent uls 
12(1)(a) - Subsequently, second proceeding initiated for 
ejectment u/s 12(1)(a) on the ground that arrears of rent due D 
during pendency of previous proceedings - Three consecutive 
defaults in payment of rent and non-payment of arrears of rent 
within two months of service of demand notice - Decree for 
ejectment uls 12(1)(a) granted by trial Court, but set aside by 
High Court - On appeal, held: Cause of action accrued in 
E 
favour of landlord to initiate proceedings for ejectment of tenant 
by filing second suit uls 12(1)(a) - s. 12(3) ors. 13(5) would 
not be attracted - Thus, landlord would be entitled to file a 
second suit for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent -
~ 
Court is to pass a decree for ejectment u/s 12(1)(a) - Thus, 
F 
order of High Court set aside - Landlord's suit is decreed for 
ejectment uls 12(1 }(a}. 
The appellant-landlord filed eviction suit against the 
respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment 
of rent u/s 12(1 )(a) on the ground of subletting u/s 12(1 )(b); 
G 
and on the ground of bonafide necessity of the 
accommodation for non-residential purposes u/s 12(1)(f) 
-' 
of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 
' 
The decree was passed under section 12(1 )(f) of the Act. 
243 
H 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A The respondent was given benefit under section 12(3) of 
,._ 
the Act and decree for· ejectment was not passed u/s 
12(1 )(a) since the respondent deposited arrears of rent 
during 1Pendency of suit. The first appellate court upheld 
the decree for ejectment on the ground of bonafide need. 
B In the second appeal, the High Court set aside the decree. 
The appellant then filed special leave petition which was 
converted into appeal. During the pendency of the 
proceedings, since the respondent did not deposit the 
rent or paid it to the appellants, the appellants served a 
c notice upon the respondent demanding arrears of rent 
due during the pendency of previous proceedings. 
Howev~~r. the respondent did not pay the rent within two 
months of the service of notice. Appellants filed a second 
suit against the respondent under section 12(1 )(a) of the 
D Act. During the pendency, the Supreme Court disposed 
of the appeal. It upheld the finding recorded by the High 
Court ·on bonafide necessity and the first proceeding 
came to an end. 
In the second proceeding, the trial court passed 
E decree for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent. 
However, the High Court set aside the decree. It held that 
no ground under s. 12(1 )(a) of the Act was available to the 
appellant for non-payment of rent by respondent during 
pendency of previous proceedings before the Court. 
F Appellants filed letters patent appeal which was 
~ 
dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 12(1 )(a) of the Madhya Pradesh 
G Accommodation Control Act, 1961 authorises the landlord 
to seek ejectment of his tenant if he has neither paid nor 
tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally 
recoverable from him within two months of the service of 
notice demanding the arrears of rent. Section 12(3) puts 
H a caveat on the right of the landlord to get ejectment on 
SOBHAGYAMAL & ANR. v. GOPAL DAS NIKHRA 
245 
the ground of arrears of rent if the tenant makes payment A 
or deposit as required by section 13. However, by virtue 
of the proviso to sub-section (3), the benefit given to the 
tenant, on compliance of the payment of rent as provided 
under Section 13, would be available to him only once in 
respect of that accommodation, but on default in the B 
"" 
payment of rent in respect of same accommodation for 
three consecutive months he would not be entitled for 
protection by depositing the rent as provided under 
section 13 in the subsequent proceedings initiated by the 
landlord for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of c 
arrears of rent. (Para 7) [253-H; 254-A-D] 
1.2 Section 13 of the Act requires that

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