DHARAMSINGH GOVINDSINGH Vs. SURESHCHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI M. L. Agarwal for the appellant. Shri S. S. Samvatsar with Shri Rajendra Sugandhi and Miss Vandana Kasrekar for the respondents. This appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law :

(2.) BOTH the learned counsel have been heard. Shri M. L. Agarwal argued that the almirah which in possession of the appellant is an "accommodation" in view of provisions of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) because it has been affixed to a wall which is part and parcel of a building which is owned by the respondents. Shri Samvatsar submitted that the said almirah is not an "accommodation" in view of provisions of the Act and, therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed.

(3.) SECTION 2 (a) of the Act provides the definition of term "accommodation". It has been indicated that "accommodation" means any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residential and includes (i) any land which is not being used for agricultural purpose : (ii) garden, grounds, garages and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of the building; (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; (iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of building. In my view the term "accommodation" is a relative term and it has to be understood being circumspective to the circumstances of the matter. So far as present matter is concerned, the almirah is subject-matter of controversy in present litigation. The size of said almirah, the measurement of said almirah, its projection, the way in which it has been affixed to wall will have to be viewed. The purpose for which said almirah is being used and the way in which it is being used will also be pertinent so far as the present matter is concerned. The size of said almirah, as the record shows, is 6' in height 4' in breadth and 2' in depth. It has been affixed to a wall of a shop which is in possession of respondents and in their use. That particular almirah alone is in possession of the appellant and, as the record shows, is being used by the appellant for commercial purpose. Thus, it is not fitted, affixed to a building or part of a building which is in possession of the appellant. It is not being used for beneficial enjoyment of the building or part of building to which it is affixed which is in possession of appellant.