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, Insodas on 14.9.1984. The house was also constructed after obtaining sanction form the Municipal Corporation, Raipur in the name of his minor son Insodas. Under these circumstances, by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, in short, 'Benami Transaction Act") the suit for ejectment the respondent as owner of the suit accommodation was not maintainable. Reliance was placed in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khera, AIR 1989 SC 1847. 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 bonafide need of the respondent for the suit accommodation was perverse and that even otherwise a decree for ejectment under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act could not be passed as the respondent was not the owner of the suit accommodation for the reason aforesaid.

(3.) THIS provision would show that a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide need can be obtained by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof. Further if he is not the owner thereof for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held. Even accepting the argument, if we take it that the accommodation was held by the respondent for the benefit of his minor son, the need advanced by the respondent was also that of the son as member of his family. It may also be said that the respondent was a member of this family of his minor son and in that capacity also he was entitled to obtain possession of the suit accommodation.