1991 (4) TMI 440 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Eviction Decree, Emphasizes Substantial Legal Questions

The court confirmed the decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, holding that grounds for ejectment ... - Issues Involved:1. Ejectment under Section 12(1)(b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.2. Subsequent events affecting the plaintiff's requirement.3. Legality of possession taken by the decree-holder.4. Applicability of Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, post-1976 amendment.5. Admissibility of new applications filed by the tenant/appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ejectment under Section 12(1)(b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961:The defendant/tenant appealed against the lower appellate court's judgment directing his ejectment from the non-residential suit accommodation under Section 12(1)(b) and (f) of the Act. The trial court had dismissed the eviction suit, but the lower appellate court allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that grounds for ejectment under both clauses were made out on evidence. The appeal was admitted only on the question of sub-letting under Clause (b), as the ground under Clause (f) was confirmed and not open to challenge. The court opined that the decree for eviction would stand regardless of the outcome on Clause (b), affecting only the tenant's entitlement to compensation under Section 12(6) of the Act.2. Subsequent events affecting the plaintiff's requirement:The tenant/appellant sought to amend the written statement to argue that the plaintiff's requirement had ended due to subsequent events and that the plaintiff had alternative accommodation. The court considered whether subsequent events should be noticed before or after the decree achieved finality. It was held that the court could not notice subsequent events after the decree had acquired finality, as established in previous judgments (e.g., Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim, AIR 1985 SC 207).3. Legality of possession taken by the decree-holder:The tenant/appellant claimed that the possession taken on 20-3-1977 was false and illegal. However, this complaint was deemed highly belated and inappropriate for consideration in a second appeal. Such issues should have been raised before the Executing Court under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.4. Applicability of Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, post-1976 amendment:The court discussed the changes brought by the 1976 amendment to Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, which made the entertainability of a second appeal dependent on the High Court's satisfaction that the case involves a substantial question of law. The court emphasized that the High Court must formulate substantial questions of law at the stage of admitting the appeal, limiting the scope of the final hearing. The court noted that once an opinion was formed that a particular question did not arise or was not substantial, it could not be re-heard at a later stage.5. Admissibility of new applications filed by the tenant/appellant:The tenant/appellant filed applications under Order 26, Rule 9, and Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, seeking inspection of the suit accommodation and amendment of the written statement. These applications were rejected as the court had already expressed an opinion that the finding under Section 12(1)(f) was not open for re-hearing, and subsequent events could not be noticed. The court held that the order dated 21-8-1978 had binding efficacy, preventing re-hearing on the same question.Conclusion:The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, confirming the decree for eviction. The applications filed by the tenant/appellant were also rejected, and no costs were ordered.