PANJUMAL DAULAT RAM Vs. SAKHI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POINTS of law urged in the appeal may be shortly stated, relying on the Kirayanama dated 1 -11 -55, it is urged that the demised premises having been let for a composite purpose, i.e., for non -residential as well as residential purposes, in the absence of a specific provision made in that behalf in section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the plaintiff's suit for ejectment based on his composite need, is not maintainable. The demised premises is situate in the heart of the business locality in Satna town. The defendant is a partnership firm carrying on cloth business from the ground floor, and the first floor is used for residential purposes. The Kirayanama Ex. P.1, shows the creation of a composite lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 250. It is urged that the contract of tenancy is one and indivisible, and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect, it is not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts one of letting for nonresidential purposes, and the other for residential purposes, and to grant relief under clauses (e) or (f) of sub -section (1) of section 12 of the Act. It is said that unlike the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, there is no provision made for eviction of tenants from residential cum -non -residential. This, it is said, is a lacuna in the Act. The submission is based on the opening words of section 12(1) of the Act, which read as follows:

(2.) RELIANCE is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma v. Dr. S.K Bhardwaj and others, AIR 1963 SC 337 and Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, AIR 1908 PC 438, in support of the contention.

(3.) IN Dr. Gopal Dass Verma's case, (supra) the premises in dispute were originally let for residential purposes; but subsequent to the letting, they were, with the consent of the landlord, used both for residential and non -residential purposes. The premises, therefore, by their user ceased to be premises let for residential purposes alone. In Miss S. Sanyal's case, (supra), there was a composite letting, i.e., for purposes non - residential as well as residential. In both the cases, the respective landlords brought suits for ejectment under section 13(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, on the ground that they required the premises bona fide for their own residence. In Dr. Gopal Dass Verma's case, (supra), their Lordships held that the premises in that case had, by their user ceased, because of the consent of the landlord, to be premises let for residential purposes alone and since that were so, the Court had no jurisdiction to decree ejectment under section 13(1) (e) of the Act.