Case Name: Anil kumar khushwah v, Anil kumar Gupta
Case number – second Appeal No.235 of 2010
Court– High court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior bench
Quorum– Hour able shri Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
Facts of case
Anil kumar khuswah is the owner of a residential house situated in Gwalior. On 17 October 2001, he gave one of his room houses on rent to Anil Kumar Gupta and the agreed rent of 500 rupees and 125 rupees was charged separately for electricity. Anil Kumar by his profession was an advocate so he started using the rented room as his office.
After some time, the plaintiff genuinely needed that room for his son and in the meantime, defendant stopped paying the regular rent also which created a dispute between the parties Because of this the plaintiff filed a case of eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) ,12(1)(c) and 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control acts 1961.
The trial court accepted the defendant had not paid the rent properly and also agreed that the plaintiff needed the room for his own residence but the court refused to pass in an eviction order only because the defendant was using the room as an advocate’s office and the plaintiff was asking for the eviction for residential use.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant challenged this decision before the lower appellate court. The appellate court changed some important findings of the Trial court and finally dismissed the plaintiff appeal. After this the plaintiff approached the high court by filling a second appeal.
Issue
1 Was the defendants Appeal before lower court legally valid
2 Does an advocate office in a residential house count as a commercial use?
3 Did the defendant’s failure to pay the rent make him liable for the eviction?
4 Was the trial court right in refusing evictions despite accepting the plaintiff’s claims?
Legal provisions
Section 96 of Civil Procedure code
Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
Section 12 (1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
Section 12 (1)(e) MP Accommodation Control Act 1961
Section 13 MP Accommodation Control Act 1961
Arguments from petitioner
The petitioner argued that the lower appellant court had made a serious mistake in law. He explained that the defendant was not allowed to file an appeal at all because no decree had been passed against him by the trial court and according to the law the appeal can be filed only against a decree not just against the courts finding so the judgment of lower appeal and court was legally wrong.
The petitioner also said the Trail court had already accepted two Important things: the dependent had not paid the rent and petitioner genuinely needed the room for his family even after accepting this Trail court refused the eviction only because the dependent was using the room for Advocate’s office.
The petitioner further pointed out that the defendant had failed to deposit the rent for a time during the case the law clearly says that if the tenant does not pay the rent regularly eviction must be granted and therefore Protestant requested the High Court to cancel the earlier judgment and order the defendant to vacate the room.
Respondents’ argument
The respondent said that he had been paying rent regularly and that amount of Rent claimed by petitioner was incorrect and according to him the actual rent was much lower than what the petitioner was claiming and he also said that he was using room as his office and therefore eviction the ground of residential needs should not be allowed.
The respondent further stated that any delay in depositing rent was not intentional and happened because of the confusion regarding the rent amount and electricity charges which he requested the court to condone and the delay and allow him to continue in the premise.
The respondent also supported the decision of the lower appellant court and claimed that there was no serious legal error in this judgment and therefore he requested the higher court to dismiss the second appeal.
Judicial analysis
The High Court carefully examined the records of all the lower courts and found that there was a serious mistake which had been made.
First the court held that an appeal filed by the defendant before the lower appeal court was not legally maintainable and the law is very clear that the appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code can be filed only against a decree. As in this case the trial court decree was in the favor of dependents so he had no right to file an appeal if he was unhappy with the certain finding, he could only raise them to the cross objections and the lower appellate and court committed a serious entertaining defendant’s appeal.
Secondly the court rejected the reasoning of Trail court that an advocate office is a residential house amounts to commercial use. The High Court explained that the legal profession is not a commercial activity especially when it is carried out in a residential building and therefore the trial court was wrong in refusing the eviction on this ground.
Thirdly the court examined the conduct of the defendant by not depositing rent for a longer period. It observed that the defendant had failed to deposit rent for many months and had not given any convincing explanation for such default and under the MP Accommodation Control Act a tenant who does not comply with the requirement of paying rent regularly loses the protection from the eviction and hence the defendant default clearly made him liable for the eviction.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that the both Trial court and the lower appellant court had committed a serious legal error and their decision could not be allowed to stand.
Judgment
After examining the case in detail, the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by petitioner and the court set aside the judgment passed by the both Trial court and the lower appellate court. It ordered eviction of the defendant because he had not paid rent properly and plaintiff genuinely needed the room. The court directed the defendant to vacate the premises within one month.
Conclusion
This judgment clearly shows how higher courts protect justice by correcting the mistakes of lower courts. The High Court ensured that the law was applied properly and that the right of the landlord was not defeated by technical error or wrong legal understanding. It confirmed that the advocate office in the residential house is not a commercial activity and the tenant who failed to pay the rent regularly cannot claim protection under the law. The decision strengthened the faith in the judicial system and serves as an important example of Fair lawful interpretation Rent Control Law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: NISHTHA JAIN
