SARDAR MEHNGA SINGH Vs. P D DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was heard on admission on 2 -7 -1992, but for want of time, the order could not be passed on that day. It is now being delivered today.

(2.) THE appellant was admittedly a tenant of the respondent in respect of the suit accommodation. He suffered a decree for ejectment on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), from both the Courts below. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to paragraph 1 of the plaint and submitted that the respondent could not claim himself to be the owner of the suit accommodation, because the land was purchased in the name of the respondent's minor son Inosdas on 14 -9 -1984. The house was also constructed after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Raipur in the name of his minor son Inosads. Under these circumstances, by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (in short 'Benami Transactions Act'), the suit for ejectment by the respondent as owner of the suit accommodation was not maintainable. Reliance was placed in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare. AIR 1989 SC 1247. It was further submitted that as there is no estoppel against law, the admission of the appellant in his written statement that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the suit accommodation is of no consequence. It was also argued that the finding of the Courts below about existence of bona fide need of the respondent for the suit accommodation was perverse and that even otherwise a decree for ejectment under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act could not be passed as the respondent was not the owner of the suit accommodation for the reasons aforesaid.

(3.) SECTION 12(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows : - -