KHILAN SINGH Vs. KARUNA SHANKAR TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL hopes, howsoever, hopefully expressed, do not necessarily come out truc. The State Legislature while bringing Chapter III -A on the Statute Book of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 had hoped that the cases of genuine requirement now provided to be dealt with by the Rent Controlling Authority, to the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be decided within six months. In the case at hand, the proceedings for ejectment were initiated on 26 -3 -84. The case languished for over nine years before the Authority, thanks to the loop -holes of procedural law and tactful devices adopted by recalcitrant tenant. The only solace is to find this civil revision witnessing its burial in less than three months of the date of its filing, thanks to the willingness expressed by the learned counsel for the parties in arguing it out finally at its threshold.

(2.) THE facts of the case at hand if, read with a touch of humanity, shorn of legalities, undoubtedly bear testimony to what their Lordships expressed in Prabhakaran Nair's case (AIR 1987 SC 2117) - "Tenants are not in all cases weaker sections. There are those who are both among the landlords as well as the tenants." If two principles arc to be kept in view : that as amongst the several provisions contained in the Rent Control Law it is only the provision entitling the landlord to seek cjectment of the tenant on the ground of genuine requirement of premises which shows its concern for the landlord and has to be interpreted to his benefit, and that while determining a case of genuine requirement the Court has to be guided not by techanicalitics of the law but by the realities of life, then this revision has to be dismissed. In Govind Vs. Dr. Jeetsingh (AIR 1980 SC 365), their Lordships have observed - "Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point, not merely by assertion or denial of the parties."

(3.) THE need canvassed by Late Karuna Shankar Trivedi, it would be better to extract and reproduce the words in which it was set -out by him in his petition for eviction, since it has been subject matter of serious controversy before this Courl -whether it amounted to pleading a case for ejectment permissible to be tried by reference to Section 23 -A of the Act or not.