LexSULOCHANA versus RAJINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 429 .. SULOCHANA A v. RAJINDER SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 3636 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] .., Rent Control & Eviction: Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961; Ss. c 11-A, 12, 23J and 23H: Composite eviction suit on ground of bonafide require- ment - Default in payment of rent and denial of title - Main- tainability of- Held: Maintainable - In terms of s.23J of 1961 Act, a widow/divorcee wife amongst others constitute the D classes of landlord who could file eviction petition on bonafide requirement - Jurisdiction of Civil Court could be ousted only when the matter comes within the purview of s.45 of the Act- Ex-facie s.45 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case - S. 12 of the Act confers jurisdiction upon Civil E Court to entertain a suit for eviction on the grounds specified therein - Provisions excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Court are to be construed strictly - High Court has failed to notice the difference in the definition of 'landlord' as contained in ... s. 2(b) and s. 23-J of the Act - Ratio of the decision of Supreme F Court in 'Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai & Others' and 'Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Vijay Kr Agarwal' was wrongly applied by the High Court - Hence decision of the High Court not sustain- able and set aside - Interpretation of Statutes - Strict con- struction. The question which arose for determination in the G appeal before this Court was as to whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a composite suit filed for evic- tion of the tenant. 429 H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 9 S.C.R. A Appellant-landlady contended that keeping in view the pleadings of the parties as also the findings of the trial judge, the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction; and that the respondent-tenant was B inducted as a tenant in the suit premises as far back as in 1978 by the previous owner and as the appellant pur- chased the suit property on 23'd March, 1996 whereas she became a widow, much earlier, i.e., on 91h July, 1990 and in that view of the matter Chapter lllA of Madhya Pradesh C Accommodation Control Act, 1961 will not be applicable. D Respondent-tenant submitted that in view of Section 45 of Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is completely ousted. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Chapter Ill-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accom- modation Control Act, 1961 provides for special provi- sions. It is confined to eviction of tenants on grounds of bona fide requirement of different classes of landlords E specified therein. A summary procedure is provided for. Recourse thereto can be taken only by the specified land- lord within the meaning of the provision of Section 23-J of the Act which means a 'landlord who is a widow or di- vorced wife' amongst others. Amongst others a servant F of any Government including a member of defence ser- vices, would also fall within the purview of the said defini- tion. Only a landlord who comes within the purview of the said definition is entitled to file suit on the ground of his or her bona fide requirement. Section 23-H provides for G deposit of rent pending proceedings for eviction or for revision. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court can thus be excluded only if the matter comes within the purview of Section 45 of the Act of Chapter Ill thereof. It is beyond . any cavil that the application for eviction contemplated H by Chapter 111-A relates to an eviction of the tenant by the SULOCHANA v. RAJINDER SINGH 431 landlord as defined in Section 23-J of the Act. (Paras - 16, A 17 & 18) [436-G,H, 437-A,B,C] 2.1 It is now well settled that the provision excluding jurisdiction of the Civil Court are to be strictly construed. They are not to be inferred readily. (Para - 20) [437-E] B Swamy Atmananda and Others vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others (2005) 10 sec 51 - relied on. 2.2 The jurisdiction of civil court is also to be deter- mined having regard to the averments contained in the plaint. It was explained as to why the civil court had the c requisite jurisdiction. (Paras - 21 & 22) [437-F, 438-A] 2.3 The issue as regards title over a property can be decided only by a civil court and, therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the suit as framed was D maintainable. (Para - 26) [440-B] 2.4 It was not a case that no cause
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.