MOHAMMAD YAKUB Vs. ALIWAZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal referred to a Divisional Bench, for reasons that will appear presently. The Appellant is the Plaintiff -landlord, seeking to evict the Defendant his tenant and to recover the arrears of rent in accordance with Section 4 (a) of the M. B. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, "the tenant having failed to make payment of the arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a written notice of demand from the landlord".

(2.) 1959 MPLJ 3, itself reaffirming an earlier single Bench decision of the M. B. High Court by Samvatsar J., in Wasudeo v. Narayan CSA No 104 of 1952 (Indore) decided on 18 -9 -1954. The only question before us is, whether these judgments call for reconsideration. It is of interest to note that another view has been taken in the Allahabad decisions in Lala Manoharlal v. Lala Bimal Kumar 1955 ALJ 435 and Rampratap v. Shri Pannalal 1956 ALJ 787.

(3.) GENERALLY speaking, it is certainly advisable that Courts should disapprove of parties making such exaggerated claims. But such a litigant would, besides losing his case to that extent, be liable to costs, pro tanto, and even special costs in appropriate circumstances, if the Defendant makes out a case for it. If any additional disability is to be imposed on him, by refusing him, the relief of eviction which he would otherwise have been entitled to, there should be legislative sanction, which is not found in this section. It does not provide (on the analogy of other disabilities elsewhere in that enactment) that a landlord who makes an exaggerated claim in his demand notice under Section 4 (a) will be disentitled to claim the eviction of the tenant.