Omprakash Jain and Others vs Shyamlal Vyas

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 19.3.2010, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioners/tenants. Earlier the trial court by order dated 23.11.2006 allowed the application u/s 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for brevity, the "Act") filed by the plaintiff and struck off the defence of the tenants. Against this order, the tenants filed Writ Petition No. 153/2007 before this Court, which was decided on 28.3.2007 (Annexure P-7). This Court after hearing the parties opined that the defendants have raised objections to the effect that the plaintiff is not the landlord and that they have deposited the rent and, therefore, these objections were required to be decided by the trial court. Striking off the defence without deciding these objections was held to be improper and, accordingly, the said writ petition was allowed. The impugned order therein was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the trial court to decide the application u/s 13(6) of the Act filed by the plaintiff with a further direction to hear the parties, give opportunity to file proper reply and documents and then decide it in accordance with law. In turn, the trial court heard the matter again on the application u/s 13(6) of the Act, filed by the plaintiff, and the objections of the defendants/petitioners u/s 13(3) of the Act. Brief facts necessary for adjudication as narrated by petitioners are as under:-

(1) A registered organisation, namely, Akhil Bharatvarshiya Shrimala Brahman Samaj Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the "Samaj Sansthan") had filed a suit u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act against the ancestors of the present petitioners regarding the same property. u/s 23A of the Act a case was filed against the ancestors of the present petitioners before the Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "RCA"). The RCA passed an interim order, against which a Civil Revision No. 86/2003 was filed. The High Court on 2.5.2003 in the said civil revision directed the ancestors of the petitioners to deposit the rent before the RCA within 15 days.

(2) The petitioners took two objections before the court below. These objections were reflected in the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and the interference was made by this Court only on the ground that those two objections were not decided. The objections are--(i) the petitioners have already deposited the rent before the RCA, before whom another case with regard to same suit property is pending, and (ii) another suit filed by Samaj Sansthan with regard to same suit property is pending wherein the Samaj Sansthan has claimed it to be the owner of the property in question. Thus, there is a dispute regarding ownership of the property and, therefore, in these circumstances, the objections preferred by the present petitions were required to be allowed and the application u/s 13(6) filed by the plaintiff/respondent is required to be rejected.

(3) Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in Chhogalal Vs. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarain (Idol), By placing heavy reliance on para 6 of this judgment, it stated that when a dispute is raised as to the person to whom the rent is payable, there is no obligation to deposit or pay the rent. By placing reliance on the objections aforesaid, it is stated that the court below has erred in passing the impugned order whereby the application of the plaintiff is allowed and the right to file written statement is closed down.

(4) Per Contra, Shri Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the present eviction proceedings against the petitioners were instituted in August, 1996 before the RCA, Gwalior. The tenants sent the rent by money order to landlord Shyamlal Vyas up to January, 1997. Thereafter no rent was deposited till 30.1.1999. In the meantime, Samaj Sansthan filed an eviction suit in December, 1997 in collusion with present petitioners and the petitioners agreed to deposit the rent in those civil suits instituted by said Samaj Sansthan. The RCA by order dated 29.10.1997 directed the petitioners to deposit the rent. The petitioners/tenants did not deposit the rent on the pretext that they have deposited the rent in the civil court. This is reflected in the facts reproduced in paras 4 and 5 of the order passed in Civil Revision No. 439/1998 decided on 7.10.1998. This was done with an intention to deprive the landlord from getting the rent. The RCA ultimately struck off the right of defence, against which said Civil Revision No. 439/1998 was filed. This Court rejected the said civil revision. On 16.3.1995 tenant Inderchand deposed before Sixth Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 311A/1994 that he admits tenancy of disputed property and payment of rent to Shyamlal Vyas. Shri Purushottam Pande by drawing attention on the impugned order submitted that the court below has taken note of this stand of the tenant. In the suit filed by Samaj Sansthan in December 1997, the tenant agreed that rent was deposited. Inderchand on 8.7.1999 deposed before the court below wherein he admitted that he knows Shyamlal. This is also considered by the court below in the impugned order.

(5) Shri Pandey submits that the conduct and act of the petitioners is not bonafide. He submits that if the petitioners had any bonafide doubt at any stage, section 25 of the Act could have been invoked but no such action has been taken by the petitioners. He submits that if the respondent was not the landlord then why the petitioners deposited the rent in respondent''s case. It is stated that the landlord is above 74 years of age and the petitioners are prolonging the litigation on false pretext. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on certain portions of the orders passed by this Court on various occasions.

(6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(7) At the costs of repetition, the main objections on which the court below was required to apply its mind are reproduced above in para (2). Before dealing with the contentions of the parties, it is profitable to quote certain findings of this Court in certain matters. In Civil Revision No. 439/1998 (Annexure R/1), this Court held as under in para 17 :-

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Shyamlal Vyas and the present applicants. It has also been observed that the present applicants had paid rent to aforesaid Shyamlal Vyas. An order passed by this Court dated 23.03.1997 has also been referred to on which reliance is placed in support of the aforesaid conclusion. The Rent Controlling Authority has found that taking into consideration the pleadings of the present applicants in the proceedings u/s 23A of the Act they stand estopped from denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as claimed by Shir Shyamlal Vyas.

In para 19, it was held as under:-

19.....The material which have been placed on record also do not lead to an inference that the applicants had ever raised any such bonafide doubt. The mere fact that the payment of rent was sought for by a person other than that person who initiated these proceedings u/s 23A of the Act by itself was not sufficient for inferring a bonafide doubt...

In para 20, it was held as under:-

Considering the circumstances of the present case it seems to me that there was no scope for bonafide doubt as indicated above as the present applicants have been paying rent as noticed in the impugned order in respect of the accommodation in dispute from much before the filing of the suits...

A bare perusal of the aforesaid findings make it crystal clear that this Court has given a specific finding that there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between Shyamlal Vyas and the petitioners. Further finding is that the rent was paid to aforesaid Shyamlal Vyas. Accordingly, categorical finding was given that the petitioners are estopped from denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. In paras 19 and 20 also it was made clear that the rent was paid to the landlord. A specific finding was given that there is no material on record which leads to an inference that there was any bonafide doubt about the landlord or on the question of payment of rent. On the basis of these findings the civil revision was dismissed. Thus, it is specifically established that there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between Shyamlal Vyas and Inderchand. The tenants are estopped by applying the principle flowing from section 115 of the Evidence Act. The dispute raised by the tenant is not bonafide. In another Civil Revision No. 86/2003 the counsel for the petitioner undertook to deposit the rent before the RCA within 15 days.

(8) The petitioners have filed Annexure P-5, i.e., description/break up of the rent deposited in landlord''s case. This list shows that the amount has not been deposited within 15 days and it was deposited after few months. The rent is also not deposited on regular basis. The few examples are as under:-

(9) It is relevant to notice here that the Samaj Sansthan succeeded in Civil Suit No. 15A/2007 and the trial court by order dated 7.7.2008 allowed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the Samaj Sansthan. Against the said judgment and decree, First Appeal No. 244/2008 (Shyamlal Vyas vs. Registered Sanstha Akhil Bharat Varshiya Shrimali Brahmin Samaj Sanstha and others) was filed before this Court. This Court on 18.3.2011 has allowed the said first appeal and dismissed the suit filed by Samaj Sansthan.

(10) The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. This Court is not required to sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate and reweigh the entire material. In absence of any jurisdictional error, manifest procedural irregularity or palpable perversity, no interference is warranted. The interference is basically made to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority so that the faith of people continues in the justice delivery system. The power needs to be exercised in public interest and not for interfering and granting relief in individual cases. The interference can be made sparingly deserving cases and not as a matter of routine on a drop of hat. This view is taken by Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil,

(11) In the aforesaid backdrop, if the order, Annexure P-1, is tested, it will show that the court below has considered each and every aspect of the matter. The court below has dealt with the objections raised by the present petitioners. On the basis of the findings given in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., Civil Revisions No. 439/1998 and 440/1998, the court below has given specific finding to overrule the objections. The court below has reproduced the order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 529/1997 dated 23.7.1997. In the said order this Court gave a finding that the petitioner has been paying rent to Shyamlal Vyas. Another finding was given that the payment of rent was made by money order and in none of these payments any dispute was raised that Shyamlal Vyas is not the owner. The court below dealt with twin objections in extenso raised by the petitioners. The findings given by the court below are based on the orders passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation. The court below has given correct, plausible and possible findings. Since findings are based on the orders passed by this Court dealing with the same suit property, the findings by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse in nature. The Full Bench judgment cited by Shri B.D. Jain in Chhogalal''s case (supra) is of no assistance to him because in earlier round of litigation there is a specific finding which addresses and deals with twin objections raised by the petitioners. The reproduced portion above shows that neither the relation of landlord-tenant can be said to be in dispute nor it was in dispute that the petitioners have deposited the rent. The claim of Samaj Sansthan also stood rejected as per the judgment passed in First Appeal No. 244/2008. Apart from this, this Court has given specific finding in the civil revision that there exits landlord-tenant relation between the petitioners and the plaintiff/landlord. Thus, whether or not, first appeal is decided when Annexure P-1 is passed, fact remains that there exists a finding by this Court that there is a landlord-tenant relation between Shyamlal and Inderchand. The petitioners are estopped and cannot raise the same objections again. Once these objections are rightly decided, it was open for the court below to deal with the application of the plaintiff u/s 13(6) of the Act. It is gathered that the court below first dealt with the objections of the tenants/petitioners and after deciding those objections dealt with the application of the landlord u/s 13(6) of the Act. The reasons for allowing the application u/s 13(6) are as under:-

A microscopic reading of this finding will show that the court below in accordance with the mandate of section 13(6) read with section 13(1) of the Act has rightly struck off the right of defence of the petitioner. Once the objections of the petitioners were found to be not bonafide and unsustainable, no fault can be found in the finding given in paras 25 and 26 of the impugned order. The said finding of the court below is in accordance with law and it is a plausible view. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(12) On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.