IMDAD ALI Vs. KESHAV CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the heirs of a tenant can be deprived of the benefit of proviso to sub-section (3) of S. 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") if the heirs father from whom they inherited the tenancy rights had availed of the benefit of proviso of sub-section (3) of S. 12 of the Act. This question arises in the following factual background.

(2.) It is not disputed that the appellant herein is the landlord of a shop in the town Neemuch. As far back as in the year 1960, one Badri Lal, father of respondents took the aforesaid shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. It appears that Badri Lal committed default in payment of arrears of rent with the result that the appellant herein brought a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. However, father of the respondents claimed benefit of proviso to sub-section (3) of S. 12 of the Act and deposited the arrears of rent. For this reason, the decree for eviction could not be passed against Badri Lal. It appears subsequently Badri Lal died and the respondents herein being the heirs of Bidri Lal inherited the statutory tenancy and they became tenant of the said accommodation of which Badri Lal was a tenant. It appears that the respondents also committed default in payment of rent. The appellant herein brought a suit for eviction of the respondents, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide need of the disputed shop as well as on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on both the grounds, and the first appellate Court affirmed the trial Courts decree. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, set aside the judgment of Courts below. Consequently, the suit stood dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellant-landlord is in appeal before us.

(3.) We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties.