Dadan Bai Wd/O Bhagchand Sindhi Vs. Arjundas - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/663959 |
| Subject | Tenancy |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Mar-31-1995 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 4183 of 1995 |
| Judge | R.M. Sahai and; S.B. Majmudar, JJ. |
| Reported in | 1995(2)SCALE643; (1995)3SCC412; [1995]3SCR109; 1995(2)LC186(SC) |
| Acts | Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act |
| Appellant | Dadan Bai Wd/O Bhagchand Sindhi |
| Respondent | Arjundas |
| Appellant Advocate | N.M. Ghatate,; S.V. Deshpande and; Pramit Saxena, Advs |
| Respondent Advocate | S.K. Agnihotri, Adv. |
| Prior history | Appeal From the Judgment and Order dated 21-7-1989 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 481 of 1989 |
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 307: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] attempt to commit murder held, section makes distinction between act of accused and its result. fact that victim has suffered simple injuries is not sufficient to acquit accused. quashing of prosecution on such ground is improper. .....was dismissed by the high court as she was not the owner 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. accommodation 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. therefore, 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.3. 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 with law and on merits.....
Judgment:ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel for the parties. The eviction petition filed by the landlady-lesser was dismissed by the High Court as she was not the owner 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. Accommodation 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. Therefore, 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.
3. 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 with law and on merits as expeditiously as possible.
4. The appeal is disposed of.