Dismissed

Prabhu Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs. Rajesh Sahu v. Smt Sakuntala Chouhan

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2021SA/105/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the eviction decree under the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act. The High Court held that Section 12(9) did not apply to the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12(1)(a) and affirmed that deterring the premises constituted nuisance under Section 12(1)(c). The appeal was dismissed without notice.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to other side.

Prabhu Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs. Rajesh Sahu Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No.105 of 2010

¶5

Prabhu Ram Sahu (died) through LR's

¶6

Rajesh Sahu son of late Prabhuram Sahu, aged about 60
years, resident of Banjari Road, Raipur, Tahsil &
District-Raipur (CG)

¶7

---Appellant/Defendant No.1

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Smt.Sakuntala Chouhan Widow of Rudra Kumar Chouhan, Age-65 years, Sarvarakar, Shri Satyanarayan Swami Mandir, Goal Bazar, Raipur (CG)

¶10

---Respondent No.1/Plaintiff

¶11

2. Shri Dalchand Jain, Jain Novelty, Ravi Bhavan, Resident of G.E. Road, Raipur (CG)

¶12

---Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2

¶13

For Appellant/Defendant No.1:

¶14

Mr.G.D.Washwani, Advocate

¶15

For Respondent No.1/Plaintiff:

¶16

Mr.Manoj Paranjape and Mr.Anurag

¶17

 Singh, Advocates

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶19

14/01/2021

¶20

Heard this second appeal on admission and formulation of substantial question of law preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1.

¶21

By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff on the grounds enumerated under Section

¶22

12(1)(a) and 12(1(c) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

¶23

¶24

as 'the Act of 1961').

¶25

Mr.G.D.Washwani, learned counsel for the

¶26

appellant/defendant No.1, would submit that both the
Courts below are absolutely unjustified in granting
decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 as
there is non-compliance of the provisions contained
in Section 12(9) of the Act of 1961. Similarly, the
alleged damage to the suit accommodation by
defendant No.1 would not constitute the ground under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 and as such, the
second appeal involves substantial question of law
for determination and it be formulated accordingly
for determination.

¶27

The plaintiff filed a suit on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 stating inter-alia that defendant No.1 is her tenant let-out for ₹ 15/- per month commencing from first day of english calender month and ending on the last day of said calender month, but defendant No.1 failed to pay rent for the period 01.12.2004 to 31.1.2007 (total 26 months) i.e. total ₹ 650/- and for which notice dated 28.9.2006 (Ex.P-1) was served to defendant No.1, but defendant No.1 did not deliver the vacant possession thereof, which constitutes a ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. Similarly, the plaintiff also pleaded

¶28

¶29

that behind the suit accommodation, there is house
of defendant No.1 and in order to have access to the
said house, defendant No.1 has dismantled one side
wall of the suit accommodation during concurrence of
tenancy, which being nuisance constitutes a ground
under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.

¶30

Resisting the suit, defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that no such ground is made out for evicting defendant No.1/tenant from the suit accommodation and the suit deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 28.3.2009, decreed the suit on both grounds under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. On appeal being preferred by defendant No.1, the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶32

So far as the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 is concerned, it has concurrently been recorded by both the Courts below that defendant No.1 has failed to make payment of rent amounting to ₹ 650/- for 26 months from 01.12.2004 to 31.01.2007. The finding recorded by two Courts below that

¶33

¶34

defendant No.1 has failed to pay rent for 26 months
despite having served two months notice as required
under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 did not
vacate the suit accommodation is a finding of fact
based on evidence available on record. It is neither
perverse nor contrary to record. Section 12(9) of
the Act of 1961 is not applicable for ground under
Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961.

¶35

Similarly, both the Courts below have concurrently held that defendant No.1 in order to have access to his house situated behind the suit accommodation dismantled one side wall of the suit accommodation, which is an act constitutes nuisance on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.

¶36

Under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the tenant shall be liable to be evicted from the suit accommodation if the tenant or any person residing with him has created a nuisance or has done any act which is consistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of landlord therein .

¶37

R E Megarry in Rent Act, 9^th edition, has mentioned that under the ground for eviction for creating nuisance, illegal use or deterration of premises by the tenant it must fall within one of the following

¶38

¶39

heads, (i) he has been guilty of conduct which is a
nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining occupies, (ii)
he has been convicted of using or allowing the use of
premises for immoral purpose or (iii) the condition of
the dwelling house is in the opinion of the Court
deteriorated owing to the acts of waste by him or
owing to his neglect or defect.

¶40

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Kamalchand v. Vijay Kumar Jain 1 relying upon text of R E Megarry (supra) held that causing damage to the premises occupied by tenant also amounts to act of nuisance.

¶41

Such a finding of fact recorded by two Courts below that causing damage to the suit accommodation would constitute ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 and the tenant is liable to be evicted is correct finding based on evidence available on record. It is also neither perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said finding and even I do not find any substantial question of law for determination of this second appeal.

¶42

Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side. No cost(s).

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

¶45

 JUDGE

¶46

1 1978(II) MP Weekly Notes 100

Prabhu Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs. Rajesh Sahu v. Smt Sakuntala Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs. Rajesh Sahu v. Smt Sakuntala Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Ram Krishna Sharma

Beerbal Das Vs Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. and Ano.

Vikram Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ghurwa and Anr.

Mangalram and Another Vs Shiv Kumar Patel and Others

Bhogi Lal Vs Kirtichand (Dead) LRs