Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961

50 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

DADAN BAI WD/O BHAGCHAND SINDHIversusARJUNDAS

1995 INSC 23731 March 1995Disposed off

The appellant, a landlady, filed an eviction petition against the lessee under Section 23A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant was not the owner because the premises were owned by the Municipal Corporation. On appeal, the Supreme Co

BISMILLAH BE (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAJEED SHAH

2016 INSC 107329 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑owner of a house in Jabalpur, proved her title to the suit property through a series of registered sale and partition deeds and served a quit notice on the respondent, who had been a tenant of the original owner, Rai Bahadur Motiram Mathuradas. The respondent denied any landlord‑tenant relationship

SAMEER KUMAR PAL & ANOTHERversusSHEIKH AKBAR & OTHERS

2010 INSC 45128 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of Shop No.1214 in Jabalpur, filed an eviction suit under sections 12(1)(c), (f) and (g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The respondents contended that the suit property was a Wakf property and, later, claimed it was a joint family property, though no such plea was raised i

HASMAT RAJ & ANR.versusRAGHUNATH PRASAD

1981 INSC 10428 April 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed two eviction suits seeking possession of a non‑residential building, claiming he needed the premises to start a medicine shop and to carry out reconstruction, and that he had no other suitable accommodation. The tenant argued that the landlord already possessed a major portion of the building (vacate

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTAversusVIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL

2002 INSC 11128 February 2002Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent landlord. The landlord filed a counter‑claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of the CPC invoking Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, seeking eviction on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement. The trial court and th

GOVINDversusDR. JEETSINGH

1987 INSC 34825 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The tenant contested, asserting the landlord already had sufficient accommodation and the suit was to raise rent. The trial court ordered eviction, but the first

PARVINDER SINGHversusRENU GAUTAM AND ORS.

2004 INSC 30522 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord of a shop in Shimla sued the widow and minor son of the deceased tenant for eviction under Section 14(2)(ii)(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, alleging that the tenant had sublet the premises to a partner and that the subletting continued after his death. The Rent Controller, the app

HEERA TRADERSversusKAMLA JAIN

2022 INSC 21922 February 2022Case Partly allowed

Heera Traders and another appealed against a decree of eviction passed by the trial court under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The landlord, Kamla Jain, sought possession of non‑residential premises and mesne profits, while the tenants argued that Section 13 of the Act, which obliges a tenant to de

SOBHAGYAMAL & ANR.versusGOPAL DAS NIKHRA

2008 INSC 24022 February 2008Disposed off

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on grounds of default in rent, sub‑letting and later bonafide necessity. The tenant was given protection under s.12(3) and the first suit was decreed on bonafide necessity, not on arrears of rent. While the f

DEWAN DAULAT RAI KAPOOR ETC. ETC.versusNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

1979 INSC 27220 December 1979Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court considered three appeals challenging house‑tax assessments of buildings that were subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but for which no standard rent had been fixed. The revenue argued that the landlord could reasonably expect to receive the contractual rent and that this should determine the

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTAversusROCHIRAM NAGDEO

1999 INSC 19520 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P.K. Gupta, purchased a shop‑godown from Narain Prasad and sued the tenant, R. Nagdeo, for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act for default in rent. The tenant contended that the sale deed was a benami transaction, alleging that the appellant was merely a name‑lender for his father, Pyarel

CHANAN LAL AND ORS.versusSMT. AZIZUNISHA

1990 INSC 14820 April 1990Dismissed

The respondent landlady filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to continue her son’s tailoring business. The trial court upheld the claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the son’s business was poor a

SUBHASH CHANDRAversusMOHAMMAD SHARIT AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39119 December 1989Dismissed

The appellant, Subhash Chandra, inherited a tenancy originally created by a lease deed (Ext. P.20) between Navinchand and his father Misri Lal. Navinchand later sold the property to the respondents, who terminated the tenancy and sued for eviction. The appellant defended by claiming that the original owner, Smt. Raj Ra

DUGGI VEERA VENKATA GOPALA SATYANARAYANAversusSAKALA VEERA RAGHAVAIAH & ANR.

1986 INSC 27619 December 1986Dismissed

The respondents, a father and son, filed an eviction petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for a shop‑room to start a readymade‑garments business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, a decision affirmed by th

RAMGOPAL AND ANR.versusBALAJI MANDIR TRUST AND ORS.

2003 INSC 10719 February 2003Dismissed

The Balaji Mandir Trust, a religious institution registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, filed an eviction suit against tenants Ramgopal and others, relying on a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 that exempted trust properties from the Act. The te

IMDAD ALIversusKESHAV CHAND AND ORS.

2003 INSC 10519 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord of a shop in Neemuch sued the heirs of the original tenant for eviction after they defaulted on rent. The original tenant, Badri Lal, had previously avoided eviction by invoking the proviso to sub‑section (3) of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and paying arrears. After Bad

D.V. PAULversusMANISHA LALWANI

2010 INSC 52818 August 2010Disposed off

The tenant, D.V. Paul, was ordered by the High Court to deposit Rs.10,000 in the trial court as compensation, failing which an eviction decree would follow. He mistakenly sent a demand draft directly to the landlord instead of depositing it in court, and later sought an extension of time to make the proper deposit. The

JAMNALAL AND ORS.versusRADHESHYAM

2000 INSC 22418 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords owned a property in Ujjain and let three rooms to the tenant at Rs.60 per month. The tenant defaulted on rent for March‑July 1976 and produced forged receipts; the landlords gave notice of termination for arrears and nuisance and sued for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation

R.C. TAMRAKAR AND ANR.versusNIDI LEKHA

2001 INSC 51216 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent landlady sued the appellant tenant for eviction and recovery of rent arrears, invoking bona‑fide requirement under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The trial court found a landlord‑tenant relationship, held the tenant in arrears and the landlady’s need bona‑fide, and decreed eviction.

SULOCHANAversusRAJINDER SINGH

2008 INSC 71616 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widow who purchased a shop in 1996, filed a composite eviction suit against the tenant for default in rent, denial of title, and her bona‑fide requirement to use the premises for her son’s business. The trial court and the first appellate court allowed the suit, but the High Court set it aside, holding

HUKUM CHANDRA (D) THR. LRS.versusNEMI CHAND JAIN & ORS.

2018 INSC 120814 December 2018Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant of a shop in Muraina, Madhya Pradesh, faced an eviction suit filed by the landlord under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming the premises were needed for his son Rajendra Kumar's utensil business. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the son al

SMT. KAMLA DEVIversusSH. VASDEV

1994 INSC 61214 December 1994Dismissed

The landlord, Smt. Kamla Devi, owned a shop let to Sh. Vasdev who fell behind on rent. After a demand notice, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to pay the arrears within one month under Section 15(1). The tenant fai

TRIBHUVANSHANKARversusAMRUTLAL

2013 INSC 75413 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Tribhuvansankar, purchased a property and sued the defendant, Amrutlal, under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction and mesne profits. The defendant denied any landlord‑tenant relationship and pleaded adverse possession, claiming 18‑19 years of uninterrupted possession. The tria

SMT. ANAR DEVIversusNATHU RAM

1994 INSC 21713 May 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant, Nathu Ram, occupied a shop owned originally by Banarsidas. After Banarsidas died, his widowed daughter‑in‑law, Anar Devi, claimed ownership and sought possession of the shop for the bona‑fide requirement of starting a business for her sons, invoking clause (b) of Section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodat

S. KANDASWAMY CHETTIARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

1984 INSC 23312 December 1984Dismissed

The tenants of several buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts challenged a 1976 Government of Tamil Nadu notification that exempted all such buildings from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. They argued that Section 29 of the Act del

CHIMAN LALversusMISHRILAL

1984 INSC 21112 November 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord served a notice on 21 October 1969 demanding arrears of rent for a portion of a shop and verandah and claimed termination of the tenancy, thereafter filing an eviction suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The tenant deposited the arrears but contested the exten

BETIBAI AND ORS.versusNATHOORAM AND ORS.

1999 INSC 10312 March 1999Dismissed

Babulal, a tenant of a shop owned by the Phool Maliyan Samaj Mandir Trust, had his tenancy terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but refused to vacate. The trustees filed an eviction suit, contending that the property was exempt from the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,

DEENA NATHversusPOORAN LAL

2001 INSC 29211 July 2001Dismissed

The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming default in rent and a bonafide requirement to use the shop for his son’s business. The trial court dismissed the rent default claim but upheld the evictio

RADHEY SHYAM ETC. ETC.versusKALYAN MAL

1984 INSC 19010 October 1984Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide need to demolish the building and construct a gold and silver ornaments factory. The lower courts upheld the eviction, citing sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h), and the tenants contended that if the ev

TARA CHANDversusSAGARBAI @ CHAIYALIBAI

2007 INSC 5419 May 2007Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed with the respondent, the landlord, allowing the appellant to occupy the ground floor in lieu of interest for ten years. After the ten‑year period the respondent filed a suit for redemption and possession, which the trial court dismissed on the gr

PRATAP RAI TANWANI AND ANR.versusUTTAM CHAND AND ANR.

2004 INSC 5038 September 2004Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 alleging default in rent, illegal sub‑letting and a bona‑fide requirement for the premises. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the landlord’s claim of genuine need and decreed eviction. On second appeal, the t

KRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. ETC.versusGHOUSE BASHA

1987 INSC 2418 September 1987Dismissed

The landlord, who ran a leather business, sought eviction of his tenant under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises for the business of his two sons. The sons had entered into a partnership with unrelated persons, holding half the

DILBAGRAI PUNJABIversusSHARAD CHANDRA

1988 INSC 2088 August 1988Dismissed

In a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the plaintiff claimed personal necessity and ownership of a shop. The trial court and the Additional District Judge rejected his claim for lack of a partition deed proving ownership. The High Court reversed these findings, ho

ARYA SAMAJ, SAGAR & ORS.versusPINJAMAL & ANR.

1986 INSC 1668 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Arya Samaj, which runs a girls' school, filed an eviction suit against the tenant occupying its building, claiming the premises were needed for additional school accommodation. The trial court and the appellate court ordered eviction under section 12(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, accepti

DHANNALALversusKALAWATIBAI AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2898 July 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by two tenants who were evicted from two shops in Indore after the widow of the former owner and her two sons filed eviction applications before the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bonafide requirement for their bus

KUSUM DEVIversusMOHAN LAL (DEAD) BY LRS

2009 INSC 4638 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Kusum Devi, the landlady, filed a suit for eviction of tenant Mohan Lal under sections 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for residential occupation and for repairs because the premises were unsafe. The trial court and the first appellate court granted

RAM BABU AGARWALversusJAY KISHAN DAS

2009 INSC 11737 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Ram Babu Agarwal, filed an eviction suit against tenant Jay Kishan Das under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, alleging default in rent and a bona‑fide need for the premises. The High Court held that the tenant had fully paid the rent as ordered in a revision petition, but rejected the l

RAGAVENDRA KUMARversusFIRM PREM MACHINERY AND CO.

2000 INSC 107 January 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide requirement to use the premises for a motorcycle showroom. The trial court held that the landlord needed the premises and that no other suitable shop was vacant; the first appe

SHAKUNTALA BAI AND ORS.versusNARAYAN DAS AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3395 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of Girdhari Lal Gattani, filed a suit in 1962 under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 seeking eviction of the respondents, tenants, on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for non‑residential premises. The suit was decreed, but the tenants appealed; during the pende

SHYAMCHARAN SHARMAversusDHARAMDAS

1979 INSC 2574 December 1979

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for failure to pay rent arrears. The trial court allowed the tenant to claim protection under section 12(3) after he deposited the arrears, and dismissed the eviction suit. While the appeal was pending, the tenant appli

PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHAversusHAKIMUDDIN SAIFI

1999 INSC 3034 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) sought eviction of a tenant from two shops under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bonafide requirement to start a business for his unemployed son and asserting that he had no other suitable non‑residential accommodation. The trial court dismisse

SHEELA AND ORS.versusFIRM PRAHLAD RAI PREM PRAKASH

2002 INSC 1164 March 2002Disposed off

The case concerned a suit for eviction of a tenant (Sheela et al.) by a partnership firm claiming to be the landlord of a shop premises under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The tenant contested the eviction, arguing that the firm was not the owner and that his written statement merely sought proof

LEELA SONI AND ORS.versusRAJESH GOYAL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4193 September 2001Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on grounds of rent default and unauthorised occupation of a portion of the premises. The trial court decreed eviction, but the first appellate court reversed, erroneously requiring the landlord to prove that

SHIVSHANKAR GURGARversusDILIP

2014 INSC 43 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Shivshankar Gurgar, a landlord, filed a suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of his tenant Dilip for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise decree whereby the tenant would pay the arrears within six months, failing which the landlord could take p

ANOKHE LALversusRADHAMOHAN BANSAL AND OTHERS.

1996 INSC 12651 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against a partnership firm. The son of a deceased partner sought to be impleaded as an additional defendant, first under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and later under Order 30 Rule 4 CPC, both applications being dismissed by the trial court and the district court. While the suit was pending

PARWATI BAIversusRADHIKA

2003 INSC 2721 May 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lessee of a non‑residential municipal premises, sub‑let the property to the respondent and later served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy for non‑payment of rent and self‑occupation. The respondent filed an eviction suit which was dismissed by the trial

SMT. GIAN DEVI ANANDversusJEEVAN KUMAR AND OTHERS

1985 INSC 1141 May 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's husband was a tenant of a shop under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After the landlord served a notice of termination, the tenant died while still in possession as a statutory tenant. The widow and heirs claimed the right to remain in possession and the protection against eviction provided by the Act

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search