KESHAR BAI versus CHHUNULAL

KESHAR BAI versus CHHUNULAL

In eviction proceedings under s. 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, denial of landlord's title by the tenant constitutes a ground for eviction, and High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perversity is shown. The lower courts' finding that respondent denied appellant's title was not perverse, hence eviction decree is restored.

Parties
Appellant: Keshar Bai; Respondent: Chhunulal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 03.08.2010, Supreme Court Decision on 07.01.2014
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; eviction decree restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Denial of Title, Concurrent Findings, Second Appeal Jurisdiction
Landlord Tenant Property Law Civil Procedure Eviction Denial of Title Concurrent Findings Second Appeal Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keshar Bai

Appellant

Chhunulal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 03.08.2010, Supreme Court Decision on 07.01.2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of landlord's title by tenant is a ground for eviction under s. 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact by lower courts
  3. 3 Whether question of title can be finally decided in eviction proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

In eviction proceedings under s. 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, denial of landlord's title by the tenant constitutes a ground for eviction, and High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perversity is shown. The lower courts' finding that respondent denied appellant's title was not perverse, hence eviction decree is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; eviction decree restored.

Orders

  • Eviction decree passed by trial court and confirmed by first appellate court under s. 12(1)(c) of M.P. Act is restored.
  • Impugned judgment of High Court is set aside.