SHAHZADALI LATAFATALI Vs. ABBASBHAI GULAM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the defendant-tenant after obtaining leave from the learned single Judge, which is directed against the decree of a Single Bench of this Court, dated 3-4-1974, in Second appeal No. 306 of 1971, reversing the decree, dated 29-10-1971, passed by the additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Appeal No. 86-A of 1970, which, in its turn, reversed the decree of the Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur, in Civil suit No. 14 of 1970, dated 25-11-1970.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present controversy are as follows: The respondents-landlords executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of Ismailbhai on 23-7-1951 and in pursuance of the mortgage, they also delivered possession to the mortgagee in lieu of interest. The mortgagee Ismailbhai inducted the present appellant as a tenant on 9-11-1955. The mortgagors redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession on 5-4-1969. Thereafter on 6-5-1969, the present appellant attorned to the respondents. On 20-5-1969 the respondents served a quit notice on the appellant for vacating the premises on the ground that they needed the premises for their own occupation and they filed the present suit on 8-8-1969. During the course of the suit an objection was raised on behalf of the tenant that the present suit was barred by virtue of the provision in section 12 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control Act, 1961. That objection was rejected by the trial Judge and the landlords' suit for eviction was decreed. On an appeal by the tenant, the learned additional District Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court and held that section 12 (4) of the Act was a bar to the tenability of the suit within a period of one year as prescribed by the section. On a Second Appeal being filed, the learned single Judge reversed the decree of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court holding that section 12 (4) of the Act would not be a bar to the ten ability of the present suit and that the mortgagors, after having redeemed the mortgage, could evict the tenant within one year of the redemption of the mortgage. Therefore, this case involves the question of interpretation of section 12 (4) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned single Judge, referring to various authorities, came to the conclusion that the phrase where a landlord has acquired any accommodation by transfer' implies a transferee landlord, who has no title to the accommodation and who for the first time so obtains the accommodation by transfer. The learned Judge held that the phrase will not be applicable where a landlord has obtained back possession after redemption of the mortgage. It was, therefore, held that the respondents could file a suit for eviction of the tenant within one year of the date of redemption.