Case: Chander Kali Bai &amp; Ors Vs. Jagdish Singh Thakur

2. The demised property is a shop situated at a place in the District of Hoshangabad. It was let out by the father of the plaintiff to the husband of defendant 1 and the father of the other defendants in the year 1951 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50. A Bhojnalaya was being run in the shop by the tenant. The plaintiffs father was running a sweetmeat shop in a rented premises the rent of which was Rs. 225 per month. The plaintiffs father died in 1970. Sometime later the original tenant, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, also died. He had paid rent upto September, 1972. After the death of the original tenant, the defendant became the tenants of the suit shop. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendants terminating the contractual tenancy w.e.f. December 31, 1972. The suit for eviction was filed on March 8, 1973 claiming therein a decree for eviction chiefly on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff, for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 150 for October, November and December, 1972 and damages for the months of January and February, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 225 per month as also future damages till the delivery of possession.3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff did not require the suit shop bona fide for his personal necessity. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court by its judgment dated August 11, 1975 took a contrary view and held in favour of the plaintiff. It decreed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and also for past and further damages at the rate of Rs. 125 per month - damages to be payable on and from January 1, 1973 until delivery of the vacant possession to the plaintiff. The High Court has affirmed this decree.

Court's reasoning:
9. Mrs. Seth in support of her argument rightly pressed into service a few other provisions of the Act. Section 13(1) giving protection against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent provides therein that even after the institution of the suit if he clears off the amount of rent due within a period specified in the section and thereafter "continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate" calculated at the rate of rent at which he was paying earlier, no decree for eviction can be passed. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that if a suit is filed on the ground of non-payment of rent after termination of the contractual tenancy, the tenant still continues to be a tenant liable to pay rent not only for the past period but in future also. In absence of a decree of eviction the person in occupation of the accommodation continues to be a tenant and is not liable to pay any damages as his occupation is not unauthorised or wrongful even after the termination of the contractual tenancy. In Damadilals case (supra), Gupta, J. delivering the judgment of this Court has said at page 653 (SCC p. 864) with reference to the definition of tenant in Section 2(i) of the Act :The definition makes a person continuing in possession after the determination of his tenancy a tenant unless a decree or order for eviction has been made against him, thus putting him on par with a person whose contractual tenancy still subsists. The incidents of such tenancy and a contractual tenancy must therefore to be the same unless any provision of the Act conveyed a contrary intention. That under this Act such a tenant retains an interest in the premises, and not merely a personal right of occupation, will also appear from Section 14 which contains provisions restricting the tenants power ofquestion for determination there was a different one. With reference to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act the argument advanced before this Court was that if after the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time or by a notice to quit the tenant continued in possession of the premises and the landlord accepted rent from his because no decree for eviction could be made in view of the subsequent Control Acts it was tantamount to holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Propertya new contractual tenancy would come into existence by acceptance of rent by the landlord in such a situation is a different matter. But this case does not lay down that the occupation of the premises by the tenant whose tenancy has been terminated by efflux of time or by notice to quit becomes unauthorised or wrongful.12. For the reasons stated above it is manifest that the defendants remained in occupation of the accommodation on and from January 1, 1973 as a tenant, conveniently to be called statutory tenant, under the Act. Their occupation was not unauthorised or wrongful until a decree for eviction was passed by the first appellate Court on August 11, 1975. Their occupation became unauthorised or wrongful only from that date. They are not, therefore, liable to pay any damages or mesne profits for the period commencing from January 1, 1973 and ending on August 10, 1975.Apropos the second point it would be useful to point out that the Act replaced an earlier Act of 1955 entitled as The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955. In a similar provision as contained in Section 4(h) of the 1955 Act, the expression used was that the landlord "is not in occupation of any other accommodation in the city or town for that purpose". There is a clear departure in the 1961 Act where the phraseology is that the landlord "has no other reasonably suitableaccommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned", in the second part of clause (f) of Section 12(1). A tenanted shop in mere occupation of the landlord filing a suit for eviction against his tenant was sufficient to deny him a decree on the ground of clause (h) of Section 4 of the 1955 Act. But under the 1961 Act, mere occupation of another premises is not sufficient. The premises must be his own, meaning thereby that they must be owned by or belong to the landlord and he must be in occupation of the same. It is, therefore, plain that the tenanted shop in occupation of the plaintiff was not sufficient to deny him a decree for eviction against his tenant under Section 12(1)(f) of thethe expression aforesaid borrowed from the English Law is quite apposite or not, but, what is certain is that a person continuing in possession of the accommodation even after the termination of his contractual tenancy is a tenant within the meaning of the Act and on such termination his possession does not become wrongful, until and unless a decree for eviction is made. If he continues to be in possession even after the passing of the decree, he does so as a wrongful occupant of theour opinion the said decision is of no help to the respondent. Thequestion for determination there was a different one. With reference to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act the argument advanced before this Court was that if after the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time or by a notice to quit the tenant continued in possession of the premises and the landlord accepted rent from his because no decree for eviction could be made in view of the subsequent Control Acts it was tantamount to holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of PropertyAct. This argument was repelled. Whethera new contractual tenancy would come into existence by acceptance of rent by the landlord in such a situation is a different matter. But this case does not lay down that the occupation of the premises by the tenant whose tenancy has been terminated by efflux of time or by notice to quit becomes unauthorised or wrongful.