DAMODAR SHARMA Vs. NANDRAM DEVIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE protecting tenants against their eviction from residential and non -residential accommodation, the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act No. 23 of 1955 (hereinafter called the 1955 Act) permits suits for eviction in certain exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional grounds, e. g. default in payment of arrears of rent, causing of substantial damage, sub -letting, creating nuisance etc. are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (n) of Section 4, which is the prohibitory section. Under Clause (g), in the case of a residential accommodation, and under Clause (h), in the case of a non -residential accommodation, a landlord can sue for eviction of his tenant on the ground of his requirement. Section 4(h) runs thus:

(2.) WHEN the present second appeal was heard by me, sitting singly, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that they were, and tad been on all material dates, in occupation of another shop, for their business, in the same locality in the city of Gwalior as the suit shop and, further, that they, had vacated in December 1956 a third shop which they had had in their occupation for the same business. However, it was vehemently urged that their suit could not be dismissed just because they had in their occupation another shop. The argument of the learned counsel may be put this way: the mere fact that the landlord is in occupation of another accommodation in which he carries on business is not by itself sufficient to dismiss the suit; he can still succeed by establishing that the accommodation in his occupation is not equivalent to the suit shop as regards suitability in all respects.

(3.) I must, therefore, proceed to examine the legislative history of Section 4(g) of the 1955 Act with a view to ascertain: (1) What the legal position was on the day that the Act was passed by the legislature? (2) in what manner the corresponding Section 4 (g) of the 1950 Act was altered in the later enactment? (3) what was the defect in the 1950 Act, and what was the mischief, for which the wording was modified? and (4) what are the implications of the alterations introduced in the later Act?