Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Dixit vs Dr. S.K. Vyas on 6 June, 2024
1 CR-835-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
CIVIL REVISION No. 835 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRADEEP DIXIT S/O SHRI M.P. DIXIT OCCUPATION:
NILL THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON ANSHUL TIWRI
D/O LATE BIPIN SETH AGE R/O E-5/193-B AREAR
COLONY BHOPAL AND R/O STRELING ENCLAVE
PHOSEII NEAR MORENA DUARY SHAITAN SINGH
SQUARE SHAHPURA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
DR. S.K. VYAS S/O NANHURAM VYAS, AGED ABOUT 85
YEAR S, R/O 527 AIR FORCE AND NAVAL OFFICERS
ENCLAVE SECTOR -7 DWARKA NEW DELHI (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SAHIL BILLA - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SUNDRAM SINGH)
Reserved on : 09/05/2024
Pronounced on : 06/06/2024
This Civil Revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming
on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra pronounced
the following:
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 23 E of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961being aggrieved with the eviction order
passed on 25.09.2023 (Annexure A-1) in Case No.0576/B-121/2020-21 by the
Rent Control Authority, Kolar, District- Bhopal.
2. The facts of the Civil Revision in the nutshell are that the respondent
2 CR-835-2023
presented an application under Section 23A of M.P. Accommodation Control
Act, 1961 before the Rent Control Authority seeking eviction of the applicant
on the ground that the application is using residential premises for running an
office in the name of Bhopal Medical College Trust. That the applicant has also
failed to deposit the agreed rent amount i.e. Rs.3,500/- per month since April,
2011 (Annexure A-2). On 31.01.2014, Rent Control Authority, Rajdhani
Pariyojna, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal passed an order directing the applicant to vacant
the suit premisses within 15 days and handover the possession of the suit
premises to the respondent, further directing to applicant to also deposit the
rent due within 15 days (Annexure A-3). The Civil Revision was filed before
this Court vide order dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure A-4) setting aside the order
passed by Rent Control Authority dated 31.01.2014 and directed the parties to
positively appear before the Rent Control Authority on 13.01.2020 (Annexure
A-5). The applicant has preferred an application before the RCA in pursuant to
the order dated 25.11.2009. The Rent Control Authority instead of applying its
own judicial mind in deciding the case and without appreciating the order dated
25.11.2019, passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 directing the applicant
to handover the possession of the suit premises to the respondent. The Rent
Control Authority has dismissed the application of applicant under Section 151
of the CPC (Annexure A-6) in which the applicant has clearly stated that
respondent is not the owner of the suit premises and he has neither produced
any Power of Attorney nor other documents, which shows that respondent is
the owner of the suit premises. The case regarding the disputed title is pending
before this Court. In absence of such title of the respondent, application of the
respondent under Section 23 A is not maintainable and submitted that order
3 CR-835-2023
passed by the RCA be dismissed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case in the
first round of litigation the order was passed by the RCA that was challenged
and proper notice has not been served and thus the order of Rent Control
Authority, Rajdhani Pariyojna, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal passed on 31.01.2014 was
quashed and the parties were directed to appear before the RCA but the RCA
without discussion the fact and law has passed an order as of Appellate Court,
the RCA has not applied the mind and not adjudicated the questions raised
before the RCA, hence, the order without application of mind is band in law.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his argument has
submitted the judgment of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another
vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 and argued that
the general principle of the Administrative Law, Court, Tribunal and Judiciary is
that natural justice be followed and reasons be assigned and there should be
application of the mind.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the house
was basically in the name of applicant's wife and she does not come in the
purview of Section 23 A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and in that
situation the application was not maintainable and the RCA has not considered
this fact and passed the order without application of mind.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per the order
it is clear that the house was purchased by the respondent in the name of his
wife. The respondent was serving in the Government Medical College, Jabalpur
and after retirement, he requires the tenanted premises for his resident and as
per Section 23 (J) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act he is covered under
4 CR-835-2023
the definition of the landlord.
8 . Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that after
purchasing the house his wife has expired and in that situation he is the legal
representative of the deceased wife and that situation also he is the owner of the
tenanted premises and this fact was brought on the record and it is not
necessary to implead the other legal heirs of the deceased as a party and he has
relied the judgment of Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others vs. M.
Chinniyan and another, (2016) 3 SCC 296. Para Nos.32 and 33 are held as
under :
" 3 2 . In the light of the law laid down in
Dhannalal [Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC
16] , in our view, it was not necessary for the appellants
to implead R. Kanjana, the daughter of late A.
Radhakrishnan in the eviction petition. Even otherwise,
as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
appellants, the High Court should not have allowed
Respondent 1 to raise such objection for the first time in
the revision because it was not raised in the courts
below. Be that as it may, the daughter having been later
impleaded in the proceedings, this objection was not
even available to Respondent 1.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot
concur with the finding of the High Court and while
reversing the finding hold that the eviction petition
cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of R.
5 CR-835-2023
Kanjana, the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan and is
held maintainable."
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that if any case
is pending before the Court the case has not to be decided in the eviction suit
and the proceeding under Section 23 A being a summary nature, it has to be
seen only the relations of the parties that being the landlord and tenant and in
this case it is admitted that the respondent is landlord, hence, no interference is
called for. Applicant after due notice has not appeared before the RCA, hence,
the RCA has passed the order.
10. I have gone through the record. Respondent before the RCA is the
owner of S-2, Sterling Enclave Phase-2, Shahpura, District Bhopal, he has
purchased the tenanted premises for residential purposes. The tenanted
premises was let to Pradeep Dixit as per rent agreement dated 08.11.2006 and
the possession was handed over to the tenant on 01.12.2006 but after April,
2011, the tenant is not paying the rent. The landlord is a retired doctor from
Medical College Jabalpur in the year 2001 and the disputed premises was
purchased for residential purposes but after the death his wife, he was residing
with his daughter and son-in-law at Nagpur. At that time he was not in the need
of the house but after that he requested the tenant to evict the tenanted premises
and tenant assured him but has not vacated the premises and he is residing at
Delhi with his daughter and son-in-law.
11. On that ground the application was allowed by the RCA vide order
dated 31.01.2014. Being aggrieved with that the revision was filed before this
Court as Civil Revision No.143/2014 and this Court vide its order dated
25.11.2019 allowed the revision, which is held as under :
6 CR-835-2023
"Looking to the factual matrix involved in the case
of Satyanjay Tripathi (supra), I am of the opinion that
the High Court relying upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards
and another v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and others
(1996) 6 SCC 634, the impugned order passed by the
Rent Controlling Authority is not sustainable and is
hereby set aside.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking note of the pending proceedings since
long, it is appropriate to direct the parties to appear
before the Rent Controlling Authority positively on
13.01.2020 and thereafter the Rent Controlling
Authority shall conclude the proceedings within a further
period of six months and pass a final order."
12. The applicant has filed an application (Annexure A-5) before the
R C A and in that, the applicant did not appear before the RCA and
subsequently on 17.12.2020 filed an application on the ground that on
13.01.2020 he was sick, so he cannot appear before the Court. So the absence
be condoned and also filed an application that the respondent was not the
owner of the disputed property as Usha Vyas was the owner of the disputed
property and she has not authorized the respondent to file the application,
hence, the application is not maintainable.
13. After hearing the parties, the application filed for condoning the
absence was dismissed by the RCA as per para No.1.4 of the impugned order
7 CR-835-2023
and application under Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed as per Para No.2
of the impugned order. It was reordered for the eviction of the disputed
premises as per order dated 31.01.2014.
14. I have gone through the record, it is clear that when this Court has
fixed the date for appearance before the RCA then the parties were bound to
appear before the RCA as the intention of this Court was to expedite the
proceeding as the proceedings were pending since long time and in that
situation when the application was filed after one year on 17.12.2020 and no
document of the sickness was attached with the application. Thus, Court below
has not committed any illegality.
15. On the point of the ownership, from the record it appears that the
applicant himself has treating Dr. S.K. Vyas as the owner has made an
agreement to purchase the tenanted premises and the respondent has clarified
that the house was purchased in the name of his wife but after passing away of
his wife, he is the owner of this disputed premises, hence, from the agreement
the applicant/tenant is bound by the estoppel and he cannot challenge the
ownership of the landlord.
16. When this fact was not challenged before this Court in the first round,
hence, as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Keshar Bai vs
Chhunulal, (2014) 11 SCC 438, at the later stage he cannot challenge the
ownership of the landlord and the same way the principle laid down in the case
o f Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others vs. M. Chinniyan and another
(supra) one of the co-owner filed an application/suit for ejectment of the tenant
that is held as under:-
" 3 2 . In the light of the law laid down in
8 CR-835-2023
Dhannalal [Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC
16] , in our view, it was not necessary for the appellants
to implead R. Kanjana, the daughter of late A.
Radhakrishnan in the eviction petition. Even otherwise,
as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
appellants, the High Court should not have allowed
Respondent 1 to raise such objection for the first time in
the revision because it was not raised in the courts
below. Be that as it may, the daughter having been later
impleaded in the proceedings, this objection was not
even available to Respondent 1.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot
concur with the finding of the High Court and while
reversing the finding hold that the eviction petition
cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of R.
Kanjana, the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan and is
held maintainable."
Thus the grounds raised before the RCA are not maintainable.
17. I have also gone through the order of the RCA. No doubt after
discussing the fact, The RCA has decided the application and has cited the
order of RCA in Case No.14/RCA/2011-12 and has passed the order of the
eviction. In this situation, it was required from the RCA to re-discus the fact but
without re-discussing the facts, the RCA has reproduced the findings of the
RCA, Rajdhani Pariyojna, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal but as new points raised before
the RCA, were decided by the RCA elaborately and after that no defence was
9 CR-835-2023
available, hence, if the RCA has cited the previous order of the RCA, it cannot
be said that the order was without the application of the mind or without the
reasons.
18. Looking to the above factual position, the judgment cited in the case
o f Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan and others (supra) is not helpful to the applicant.
19. After above discussion, the order of the RCA is affirmed and the
Civil Revision has no merit, hence, it is dismissed.
20. With the copy of the order, the record of the concerned RCA be
returned back for necessary information.
21. Record of this appeal be consigned to record room.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
V. JUDGE
DPS
