Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) That, either the landlord or the person on whose benefit the landlord holds the accommodation must be the owner of the same.
(vi) That, the landlord or the person mentioned hereinbefore has no reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town where the accommodation is situate.

13. Thus, the landlord/plaintiff must plead and prove all these ingredients of Section 12(1)(f) of 'the Act' in order to succeed in a suit for eviction on that ground. Section 12(1) of 'the Act' requires a landlord to file a suit for eviction only on any one or more of the grounds mentioned in that section notwithstanding anything contained in any law to the contrary. The Supreme Court overruling a decision of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. P. Bhargava and G. P. Singh, JJ. in the case of Smt. Chandan Bai v. Surjan, reported in 1972 MPLJ 216 = AIR 1972 MP 106, has held in the case of Roshan Lal v. Madan Lal, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2130, that a Court cannot pass a decree of eviction unless any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 12(1) is proved in a contested suit or a suit compromised by the parties. In a suit between a landlord and tenant, the compromise decree for eviction is assailable as a nullity if it does not appear either from the decree itself or from the material on record that landlord could get a decree for eviction under any of the grounds Under Section 12(1) of 'the Act' or the tenant did not concede that he was liable to be evicted on any of the grounds for eviction raised by the plaintiff Under Section 12(1) of 'the Act'. The view of G. P Singh, J. who spoke for the Division Bench that there was no such mandate Under Section 12(1) of 'the Act' as was Under Section 13(1) of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1932 for not passing a compromise decree without the existence of a ground Under Section 12(1) of 'the Act' was not accepted. The Supreme Court after reproducing Section 12(1) of 'the Act' in AIR 1975 SC 2130 (supra) at page 2133, paragraph No. 4, observed as follows :-

It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court that a Court cannot pass a decree for eviction of a tenant whether it be compromise ex parte, or contested decree unless a ground Under Section 12(1) of 'the Act' is made out. Section 12(1) of 'the Act' has been treated as a mandate upon the Court not to pass a decree otherwise. The following paragraph of that decision brings out the ratio of that case (Page 2133, Paragraph 5):-
Para 5 : "In order to get a decree or order for eviction against a tenant whose tenancy is governed by any Rent Restriction or Eviction Control Act the suitor must make out a case for eviction in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When the suit is contested the issue goes to trial. The Court passes a decree for eviction only if it is satisfied on evidence that a ground for passing such a decree in accordance with the requirement of the Statute has been established. Even when the trial proceeds ex parte, this is so. If, however, parties choose to enter into a compromise due to any reason such as to avoid the risk of protracted litigating expenses, it is open to them to do so. The Court can pass a decree on the basis of the compromise. In such a situation the only thing to be seen is whether the compromise is in violation of the requirement of the law. In other words, parties cannot be permitted to have a tenant's eviction merely by agreement without anything more. The compromise must indicate either on its face or in the background of other materials in the case that the tenant expressly or impliedly is agreeing to suffer a decree for eviction because the landlord, in the circumstances, is entitled to have such a decree under the law."