MP Accommodation Control Act | Exemption From Statute U/S 3(1)(b) Is With Respect To Specified Premises, Not Landlord-Tenant Relationship: High Court

Section 3(1)(b) of the Act exempts the application of the statute with regard to property of a local authority used exclusively for non-residential purposes.

The bench comprising Justice Pranay Verma observed-

...the exemption which is provided is to the premises itself and not in respect of a relationship of landlord and tenant, meaning thereby that such exemption would be in respect of the premises regardless of the parties to the suit which may be either the owner or lessee or the lessee or the sub-lessee. That would not make any difference and the exemption would still be applicable and the provisions of the Act, 1961 would stand excluded regardless of the fact as to between which parties the suit has been instituted.

Facts of the case were that the Appellant's grandfather had obtained the suit property (a shop) vide a lease agreement from the Nagar Palika. Later, his grandfather bequeathed his rights on the shop to the Appellant via his Will. Accordingly, the Nagar Palika renewed the lease in his favor. Before his death, the grandfather of the Appellant had sublet the shop to the father of the Defendants in return for monthly rent.

Since the Defendants were not paying the rent, the Appellant instituted a suit for eviction against them and also sought for damages. The trial court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff and held that the provisions of the Act of 1961 would not be applicable to the case since the property was owned by the Nagar Palika. The Respondents/Defendants preferred an appeal against the said decree before the lower appellate court which eventually reversed the judgment/decree of the trial court. It held that the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act would not be applicable in the case since it is operational in cases involving owner-lessee relationship and not lessee-sublessee. It further observed that because the Appellant/Plaintiff had failed to prove any of the grounds mentioned under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act against the Respondents/Defendants, the decree for eviction could not be upheld. Aggrieved, the Appellant/Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Court.

The Appellant argued before the Court that the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is available in respect of the accommodation and not in respect of the parties.. Thus, it was asserted that the tenancy of Defendants had validly been terminated by a notice and hence the trial court had rightly granted the decree of eviction in his favour.

Per contra, the Respondents/Defendants submitted that the lower appellate court had correctly held that the suit was not exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act owing to their lessee-sublessee relationship with Appellant/Plaintiff. Therefore, the Appellant was obligated to prove one of the grounds as laid down under Section 12(1) of the Act to seek for eviction. Since he had failed to do so, he was not entitled to the decree for eviction. Thus, it was prayed that no interference was called for in the decision of the lower appellate court.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found force in the arguments put forth by the Appellant. It noted that the jurisprudence regarding the subject matter has laid down that the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is not conferred on the relationship of landlord and tenant but on the premises itself which thereafter is not subjected to the provisions under the Act of 1961. Therefore, the Court concurred with the findings of the trial court-

Thus, the lower appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the provisions of the Act, 1961 would be applicable to the present case and the plaintiff was required to prove a ground under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1961 and on him not having done so his claim could not have been decreed. The Nagar Palika Parishad being the owner of the suit shop had leased out the same to the plaintiff. The defendants are his sub- lessee in the suit shop whose tenancy has been validly terminated by the plaintiff by notice dated 16.04.2013 in view of which he is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit shop from the defendants as had rightly been held by the trial Court.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and restored the decree for eviction passed by the trial court in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff.

Case Title: NARENDRA VERSUS NARENDRA

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 291