Ramesh S/O Bhanwarlal Borana Thr. ... vs Sitabai Wd/O Nanuram Teli Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6627 MP

1                                                  CR No.290/2009




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT INDORE
                           BEFORE

            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                   ON THE 4th OF MAY, 2022
                CIVIL REVISION No. 290 of 2009

   Between:-
   RAMESH S/O BHANWARLAL BORANA
   THR. LRS. KIRTI BORANA W/O MURALIMANOHAR
1. PRAJAPTI , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
   BUSINESS KHEDI MOHALLA NEEMUCH CITY (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   RAMESH S/O BHANWARLAL BORANA
   THR. LRS. JAYA BORANA W/O GAUTAM SISODIA , AGED
2. ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD ADA
   BAZAR, SHAAMGARH DIST MANDSAUR (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONERS
   (BY SHRI D.D. Vyas, senior counsel with Shri Ajay Vyas Adv.)

    AND

   SITABAI WD/O NANURAM TELI
   THR. LRS. GOVERDHANLAL S/O NANALAL RATHORE
1.
   GURUKRIPA SWEETS BUS STAND KUKDESHWAR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SITABAI WD/O NANURAM TELI
   THR. LRS.
2. RAJENDRA S/O NANALAL RATHORE (TELI) BHATKHEDI
   WAKA, TEHSIL MANASA DIST NEEMUCH (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
3. SITABAI WD/O NANURAM TELI
   THR. LRS. PRAHLAD S/O NANALAL RATHORE (TELI)
 2                                                         CR No.290/2009




   BHATKHEDI WAKA, TEHSIL MANASA DIST NEEMUCH
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SITABAI WD/O NANURAM TELI
   THR. LRS. KAMLABAI D/O NANALAL RATHORE (TELI) W/
4.
   O BHANWARLAL PEEPAL KA BEDA, KHAJANCHI GALI,
   NEAR JAIN MANDIR, AJMER RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN)
                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
   (BY SHRI Y.P. Rathore Adv.)
      This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the

following:

      With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at

motion stage.




                              ORDER

1/ The petitioners have preferred this civil revision under Section 23-E(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act") being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Neemuch in Case No.01/A-90(6)/2006-07, whereby petitioners ancestor Ramesh is directed to vacate the suit premises and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent's ancestor Sita Bai.

2/ The brief facts of the case are that Sita Bai had filed an application under Section 23-B of the Act for eviction of Ramesh from the suit premises on the basis of bonafide need of her son Prahlad for

business purpose. She has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 21.1.1997 from one Ashok Kumar, and Ramesh was tenant on monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The ancestors of the present applicant Ramesh denied the contention of the application and submitted that Ashok Kumar has executed sale deed which is not a genuine transaction and Sita Bai has not pleaded the requirement of Section 23 of the Act and as such no ground is made out for ejectment.

3/ After hearing both the parties, trial Court has passed an order of ejectment on 31.10.2009. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner has filed this revision before this Court.

4/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has not appreciated the evidence correctly and legally. Respondent has failed to prove that Sita Bai was landlord of the suit premises. Ground of ejectment has not been pleaded as required by Section 23 of the Act. Respondent has no other suitable accommodation for her own business. The impugned order passed by the court below is not in consonance with the evidence on record, therefore, it is perverse and bad in law. Court below has committed an error in rejecting the interim application of the petitioner about calling the record and adducing evidence. Hence he prays that the impugned order of ejectment be set aside and the application filed by the respondents be dismissed with cost.

5/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the same and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned order.

6/ Both the parties are heard at length and perused the documents filed along with this civil revision.

7/ Undoubtedly Sita Bai has filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controlling Authority, Neemuch and after passing the impugned order, during the pendency of this revision she has died on 4.2.2014. Thereafter her legal representatives have been brought on record.

8/ It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that Sita Bai was admittedly falling in the specified category of landlord under Section 23-A of the Act for the purpose of ejectment and she was covered under the definition of landlord within the meaning of Section 23-A, 23-B and 23-J of the Act.

9/ Counsel for the petitioner contended that after the death of Sita Bai her legal representatives do not fall under the category of landlord under Section 23-J and 23-B of the Act, therefore, impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority bet set aside.

10/ The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Leelawatibai (deceased) through L.Rs. Mahendra Kumar and Othrs Vs. Radhakishan (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt. Sajjanbai and Others reported in 211 (II) MPACJ 347, has held as under:-

"29. In the result, we answer the reference in the following manner:-

"(1) In an application for eviction by landlord of specified category under Section 23-J of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act based on the bonafide

requirement of the landlord himself any any other person permitted under clause (a) or (b) of Section 23-A of the Act, the death of landlord will not result into abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs substituted in place of the landlord may continue the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority.

(2) In case of death of landlord during the pendency of the application for eviction under Chapter III-A based on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord along, it would come to an end on death of the landlord and substitution of the legal heirs may not be permitted because the cause of action, as pleaded in the application would come to an end with the death of the landlord. (3) If the death of the landlord takes place after the eviction order is passed in his favour, the legal representatives of the landlord nevertheless may continue the revisional proceedings to defend the order of eviction."

11. The same principle was laid down in the cases of Dhannalal S/o Mannalal Vs. Kalavatibai and Others reported in 2001 (2) MPLJ 349, Sundarlal Vs. Smt. Ramkali Bai reported in 1993 (I) MPWN 222 and Indarmal Gugalia Vs. Smt. Dopdabai and Others reported in 2005 (II) MPACJ 56.

12/ Relying upon the law laid down by the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the death of original landlord Sita Bai will not result into abatement of the proceedings and her legal representatives which were substituted in place of the landlord may continue the proceedings and deserve for the same relief, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable.

13/ Counsel for the petitioner has also filed the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sardarilal Vs. Narayanlal reported in 1981 MPLJ 76, in which it has been held that:-

"Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act has the effect of severing the tenancy in respect of the part of the property transferred by the lessor. The transferee of a part of the property leased can terminate the tenancy with respect to the part transferred to him by giving quit notice to the lessor. A right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease."

14/ The facts of the aforesaid citation is related with Section 106 & 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the present case is related with the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Therefore, this citation is not applicable in the present matter.

15/ Undoubtedly Ramesh was tenant in the suit premises which was purchased by Sita Bai from the previous owner and bonafide need of Sita Bai's son for use of suit premises for the non residential purpose is duly established from the evidence of her son Prahlad (PW-2) and Sita Bai (PW-1). Although respondent Ramesh in the trial Court has adduced his examination-in-chief on oath, but he was not cross-examined by the opponent, therefore, his incomplete statement cannot be considered in evidence. The statement of Sita Bai and her son Prahlad is well supported by the other documentary evidence, therefore, respondent's bonafide need of the suit premises has been properly established and the Rent

Controlling Authority has rightly held that Sita Bai deserve for ejectment of suit premises on the basis of bona fide need of her son.

16/ As such I do not find that learned Rent Controlling Authority has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order, which can be corrected by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

17/ In view of the above, this civil revision filed by the petitioner has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

(Anil Verma) Judge Trilok/-

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.05.06 10:12:56 +05'30'