DADAN BAI WD/O BHAGCHAND SINDHIversusARJUNDAS
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 237
- Decided
- 31 March 1995
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
A lessor whose title cannot be disputed by the lessee is deemed the owner for purposes of eviction under Section 23A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.
Summary
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 Court examined whether a lessor whose title is not contested by the lessee can be treated as the owner for purposes of eviction under the Act. The Court held that such a lessor is indeed the owner, and the High Court was not justified in setting aside the decree in favour of the landlord. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits. The appeal was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a lessor whose title cannot be disputed by the lessee is deemed the owner under Section 23A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act for filing an eviction petition.
- Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the eviction petition on the ground that the premises belonged to the Municipal Corporation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
DADAN BAI WD/0 BHAGCHAND SINDHI A
v.
ARJUNDAS
MARCH 31, 1995
(R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Section 23A(b)
Lesso,--Title not disputed by lessee-Such a lessor is owner at whose
instance Eviction petition is maintainable. C
The eviction petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High
Court on the ground that she was not the owner because the premises
beloliged to the Municipal Corporation.
Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to High D
Court, this Court
HELD: A lessor whose title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoub-
tedly is owner at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were main-
tainable. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the
decree passed in favour of the appellant. (110-B] E
CIVIL APPELIATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4183 of
1995.
From the Judgment aod Order dated 21.7.89 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in C.R.No. 481 of 1989. F
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpaode aod Pramit Saxena for the Ap-
pellaot.
..._.
S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
Heard counsel for the parties. The eviction petition filed by the
landlady-lessor was dismissed by the High Court as she was not the owner H
109
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.
-
A since even on her own admission the premises belonged to the Municipal
Corporation. The word 'owner' used in Section 23-A(b) of M.P. Accom-
modation Control Act has in our opinion been construed narrowly. A
lessor whose-title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoubtedly is owner
at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were maintainable. There-
B fore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the decree passed in
favour of the landlord on the ground that since the premises belonged to
Municipal Corporation, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable.
The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The matter
,.. __
remitted back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance
C with law and on merits as expeditiously as possible.
The appeal is disposed of.
T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.