JAGITKUMAR Vs. JAGDEESHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to this Bench by the learned single Judge hearing this appeal: "In the case of a composite tenancy, if it is established that the landlord requires the non-residential part of the accommodation or residential part of the accommodation. Whether a decree for eviction of the tenant from the entire premises can be passed."

(2.) Shri Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that if a landlord was able to make out a ground specified in Section 12 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he became entitled to a decree for eviction in respect of that portion of the premises, the requirements for which was established by him and as a contract of tenancy could not be split up a decree for eviction of the tenant from the entire premises had to be passed.

(3.) In reply, Shri Saxena, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in the case of a composite tenancy, the landlord had to establish requirement of residential as well as the non-residential part of the accommodation and unless that was done, he was not entitled to a decree for eviction of the tenant from the premises. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma v. Dr. S. K. Bhardwaj (AIR 1963 SC 337), Miss S. Sanyal v. Gianchand (AIR 1968 SC 438) and Has-mat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (AIR 1961 SC 1711).