Abbas & Ors Vs. Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan  Insc 299 (20 April 2004)
Lahoti & Ashok Bhan.
out of SLP (C) No.19058/2003) WITH Civil Appeal Nos. _____________/2004
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19142-19143/2003) R.C. Lahoti, J.
granted in all the three SLPs.
appellants are the landlords and the three respondents in the three appeals are
three tenants in three shop-premises belonging to the appellants. Proceedings
for eviction of the tenant-respondents were initiated by the
landlord-appellants on the ground available under clause (h) of sub-Section (1)
of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, hereinafter, the
Act, for short, alleging the bona fide requirement of the landlords for the
purpose of re-building the shops. The suit was decreed. As required by Section
18 of the Act, the Court appointed the time for vacating of the premises by the
tenants accompanied by direction for reoccupation by the tenants after the
premises have been rebuilt.
13.11.00 the tenants vacated the premises and delivered possession to the
landlords. One year's time was allowed to the landlords for completing the
rebuilding and offering the premises for reoccupation by the tenants. The
landlords failed to honour their obligation of offering the shops for
reoccupation by the tenants. The tenants initiated proceedings for restoration
of possession and compensation for breach of obligation by the landlords. They
succeeded from the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court as also from the High
Court. Feeling aggrieved the landlords have filed these appeals by special
notable that the Trial Court has not only directed possession being restored to
the tenants but has also directed a compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
per month to be paid by the landlords to each of the tenants.
the course of hearing we tried to explore the possibility of settlement between
the parties. The landlords have produced a site plan of newly built premises
for the perusal of the Court. It appears that a huge shopping complex has come
up in place of the old building. There are 18 shops on the ground floor. The
landlords offered to the tenants the three shops situated contiguously, each
measuring 8' x 8'. on the north-eastern end of the building. The shops were not
acceptable to the tenant-respondents for reoccupation mainly for two reasons.
Firstly, the shops were situated on the back part of the building at a distance
from the front portion of the building while the shops they had vacated were
situated in the front portion of the old building abutting on the main road.
Secondly, the area of the shops was much less compared to the area of the shops
previously in occupation of the tenants. There were other incidental and
ancillary disputes. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has been
able to persuade the respondents to occupy the shops offered by the landlords
and it is reported that on 2nd April, 2004
three shops measuring 8' x 8' each have been occupied by the three tenant-
respondents. This brings to an end one and the major part of the controversy.
learned senior counsel for the landlord-appellants submitted that as the
tenant-respondents had delayed in delivery of possession over the erstwhile
tenancy premises therefore they had lost their right to reoccupation. Still in
deference to the wishes of the Court they have given possession to the
tenant-respondents over three shops.
the respondents must agree to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month per
shop as is the prevalent market rate and being paid by other tenants of the
adjoining shops. Secondly, submitted the learned senior counsel for the
appellants, that the direction as to payment of compensation by the appellants
to the respondents should be set aside as the same is unjust and uncalled for.
The Court has not recorded any evidence nor the respondents have brought any
material on record of the Court to form an opinion that the quantum of loss
allegedly suffered by each of the respondents was at the rate of Rs.3000/- per
not propose to enter into niceties and perpetuate the litigation. Inasmuch as
the principal and major part of the controversy has come to an end by the
landlords having offered three shops to the three tenant-respondents and the
shops have also been occupied by them, the remaining other disputes need a
summary burial and that can be done by making reasonable directions. We agree
with the learned counsel for the landlord-appellants that in the absence of any
material supporting the finding, the direction for payment of compensation to
each of the tenant-respondents at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for the
period for which they have been out of occupation cannot be sustained. The
learned counsel for the tenant- respondents has conveyed the willingness on the
part of the tenant- respondents to pay reasonable rent to the
landlord-appellants in view of the premises having been newly constructed.
opinion, the same rent which is being paid by the tenants in the adjoining
shops would be a fair measure of rent which the tenant-respondents should be
directed to pay. However, what is the rent which is being paid by those tenants
is not clear from the record.
the three appeals are disposed of in terms of the following directions :-
The three tenant-respondents who have entered into possession of the three
shops on 2nd April,
2004 situated in the
north-east corner of the building shall be deemed to be holding the shops in
their respective possession as tenants with effect from 2nd April, 2004. They will execute such rent notes
in favour of landlords as may be approved by the trial Court. If the terms of
lease are not settled then the tenancy between the parties shall remain one for
non-residential purpose running month by month.
The Trial Court shall ascertain the rent which is being paid by the tenants in
the adjoining shops preferably the three shops which are of the dimension of
8'-0"x8', 7'-10"x8' and 7'- 8"x8' and appoint the same rent to
be paid by each of the three tenants to the landlords month by month with
effect from 2nd April, 2004.
The tenant-respondents are entitled for payment of compensation for the period
November, 2001 upto 9th April, 2003, the day of the order of the High
Court reserving three shops for occupation by the tenants and which the tenants
refused to occupy. The rate of compensation payable by the landlords to the
tenants shall be calculated at the same rate at which rent is appointed by the
Trial Court for payment by the tenants to the landlords. It shall be in the
discretion of the Trial Court to direct the compensation being paid by the
landlords to the tenants lumpsum or to direct the same being adjusted as
against payment of rent by the tenants to landlords after the amount of
compensation has been quantified.
appeals stand disposed of in terms abovesaid. Costs as incurred.
Pages: 1 2