Heritable tenancy rights, cheque tender, and ignored evidence in second appeal shaped eviction and bona fide requirement findings.

A tenant protected by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act retained a heritable interest after termination of the contractual tenancy, so the heirs could continue the appeal and the matter did not abate. Payment of arrears by cheque was a valid tender where the Act required timely payment and no contrary agreement or circumstance showed that cash alone was required, so default-based eviction could not stand on that ground. In second appeal, interference with a lower appellate finding on bona fide requirement was justified because material evidence on the landlord's need and financial capacity had been ignored; the dismissal of the suit was ultimately upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a tenant continuing in possession after determination of the contractual tenancy under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 retained a heritable interest so that his heirs could continue the appeal; (ii) whether payment of arrears of rent by cheque constituted a valid tender under the Act; and (iii) whether the High Court in second appeal was justified in interfering with the lower appellate court's finding on bona fide requirement on the ground that material evidence had been ignored.

Issue (i): whether a tenant continuing in possession after determination of the contractual tenancy under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 retained a heritable interest so that his heirs could continue the appeal.

Analysis: Section 2(i) of the Act defines "tenant" to include a person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy unless an order or decree for eviction has been made. That definition places such a person on the same footing as a contractual tenant unless the statute indicates otherwise. Section 14, which restricts sub-letting and transfer or assignment of tenancy rights, also proceeds on the basis that such a tenant retains an interest in the premises. The statutory protection under the Act therefore preserves an interest in the tenancy rather than conferring only a bare personal right of occupation.

Conclusion: the heirs and legal representatives were entitled to prosecute the appeal; the contention that the appeal had abated failed.

Issue (ii): whether payment of arrears of rent by cheque constituted a valid tender under the Act.

Analysis: The Act required payment or deposit of rent within the prescribed time to avoid eviction for default. The Court held that, in contemporary commercial usage, payment by cheque may amount to a valid mode of tender unless the circumstances show a contrary intention. In the absence of any indication that only cash was required, and since the cheque was not dishonoured, the tender satisfied the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: tender of rent by cheque was valid and the ground of default did not entitle the landlord to eviction.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court in second appeal was justified in interfering with the lower appellate court's finding on bona fide requirement on the ground that material evidence had been ignored.

Analysis: The Court accepted that a pure finding of fact is ordinarily not open to interference in second appeal, but it held that a finding reached by ignoring relevant and material evidence is bad in law. Here, the lower appellate court had overlooked evidence bearing directly on the landlord's financial capacity and need for the proposed business. The High Court was therefore entitled to restore the trial court's finding.

Conclusion: the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in upsetting the lower appellate court's conclusion on bona fide requirement.

Final Conclusion: the decree of dismissal of the suit was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant protected by a rent control statute that defines "tenant" to include a person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy retains an interest capable of devolution, and a finding of fact may be interfered with in second appeal where it is vitiated by ignoring material evidence; moreover, rent tendered by cheque may be valid in the absence of a contrary agreement or circumstance.

---