Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP345
Shiv Dayal, J.1. While protecting tenants against their eviction from residential and non-residential accommodation, the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act No. 23 of 1955 (hereinafter called the 1955 Act) permits suits for eviction in certain exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional grounds, e. g. default in payment of arrears of rent, causing of substantial damage, sub-letting, creating nuisance etc. are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (n) of Section 4, which is the prohibitory section. Under Clause (g), in the case of a residential accommodation, and under Clause (h), in the case of a non-residential accommodation, a landlord can sue for eviction of his tenant on the ground of his requirement. Section 4(h) runs thus:''4. No suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds;* * * * *(h) in the case of non-residential accommodation, that the landlord genuinely requires the accommodation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT418; 2001(2)MPLJ361
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior dated 21-6-1999, in Case No. 37/86-87/907, whereby the Authority directed that the tenant (non-applicant before the Authority) shall handover the vacant possession of the suit-property to the landlady/applicant, within a period of two months, failing which, it is open for the landlady/applicant to get the recovery of the possession, in accordance with law. It was further directed that the tenant/non- applicant shall pay the rent atthe rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the landlady/applicant till the date of handing over the possession. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Authority also directed the payment of Rs. 9,600/- to be made to the tenant/non-applicant, as compensation, by the landlady/applicant, at the time of taking over the possession from the tenant.2. The brief facts giving rise to the case arc that the landlady/applicant has a non-residential accommod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)MPHT106
ORDERS.B. Sakrikar, J.1. Unsuccessful applicant, a landlord has directed this Revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 15-11-96 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A-90/7/52/86-87 thereby rejecting the application filed by the applicant against the respondent for his eviction from the suit accommodation on the ground of requirement of the said accommodation for establishing the office of his major son, an Advocate.2. This is one more lis between landlord and tenant in which the landlord is contesting his claim for eviction against the tenant since 1985. Period of this enormity is prone to cause frustration in the minds of both the sides. After all, how long legal battle should continue Legal justice should not be allowed to become a teasing illusion or promise of unreality. When litigation goes on and on, it is time that litigants learnt three percepts; 'To live honorably, not to injure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)MPLJ489
ORDERS.B. Sakrikar, J.1. UNSUCCESSFUL applicant, a landlord has directed this Revision under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 15-11-1996 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A-90/7/52/86-87, thereby rejecting the application filed by the applicant against the respondent for his eviction from the suit accommodation on the ground of requirement of the said accommodation for establishing the office of his major son, an Advocate.2. This is one more Us between landlord and tenant in which the landlord is contesting his claim for eviction against the tenant since 1985. Period of this enormity is prone to cause frustration in the minds of both the sides. After all, how long legal battle should continue? Legal justice should not be allowed to become a teasing illusion or promise of unreality. When litigation goes on and on, it is time that litigants learnt three percepts; 'To live honorably, not to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(1)MPLJ612
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, rejecting the application of the defendant-applicant praying for the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has now approached this Court by means of the present revision under section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel representing the respondents-landlords and have also carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. An application under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act which is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if it was a plaint, was filed by the plaintiff-landlord, Dwarika Prasad Singhal seeking eviction of the defendant, National Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP66; 2004(1)MPHT38; 2004(1)MPLJ114
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission by order dated 18-6-1985 :--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit had abated ?'2. The suit was instituted by State of Madhya Pradesh as plaintiff for declaration that the exparte decree obtained by defendant No. 1 Jai Singh in Civil Suit No. 839 of 1975 on 3-3-1978 against the plaintiff is without jurisdiction and it is not binding on the plaintiff. By this decree a cash allowance of Rs. 100/- per month was granted to defendant No. 1 - Jai Singh. The suit was filed on 7-10-1980. On 30-6-1982, Counsel for the defendant No. 1 submitted an application stating therein that defendant No. 1 - Jai Singh has died four months ago. As mentioned in order, dated 30-10-1984 of the Trial Court, defendant No. 1 - Jai Singh had died on 17-2-1982. An application desc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1990]79STC289(MP)
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding gas rubber tube as taxable at 8 per cent vide entry 32 of Part 111 of Schedule II instead of at 13.5 per cent under entry 25 of Part II of Schedule II of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The short facts relevant for our purpose may be stated thus : The assessee deals in gas stoves, their parts and gas cylinder at Govindpura, Bhopal. He was assessed to tax for the period April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981, by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhopal, by his order dated September 25, 1982. The gross turnover was determined at Rs. 48,13,825 and tax was assessed at Rs. 60,130 for the period in question. The assessee also sold rubber t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP1; 1998(2)MPLJ618
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge whereunder allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, the order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal seeking setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Auihority granting the stage carriage permit to the said respondent has been quashed, the objec-tor/respondents in the writ petition have now come up in Letters Palent Appeal seeking redress praying for the selling aside of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent, and have carefully perused the record. 3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. I had moved an application praying for the grant of a permit on 28-10-1996 for service of a stage carriage of two return trips daily on the route As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)MPLJ620
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1.The application of the appellant under Order 22, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is being decided by this order.2. Respondent No. 1 Kishan died on 27-7-1993 and respondent No. 2 Dayaram died on 8-8-1993 during the pendency of this second appeal. Learned counsel for the other respondents brought it on record by an application submitted on 8-5-1995 regarding the death of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the dates mentioned above. The appellant submitted the application under Order 22, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on 3-8-1996. Thus there was delay of 15 months from the date it was brought on record the fact of the death of the two respondents. The trial Court also on a direction from this Court recorded a finding in the report dated 30-7-1997 that the appellant had the knowledge of the death of these respondents in the year 1993.3. The appellant amended his original application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)MPHT285
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. The application of the appellant under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C., read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is being decided by this order.2. Respondents No. 1 Kishan died on 27-7-1993 and respondent No. 2 Dayaram died on 8-8-1993 during the pendency of this second appeal. Learned counsel for the other respondents brought it on record by an application submitted on 8-5-1995 regarding the death of the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the dates mentioned above. The appellant submitted the application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C., read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on 3-8-1996. Thus there was delay of 15 months from the date it was brought on record the fact of the death of the two respondents. The trial Court also on a direction from this Court recorded a finding in the report dated 30-7-1997 that the appellant had the knowledge of the death of these respondents in the year 1993.3. The appellant amended his original application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C,...
Tag this Judgment!