The Trial companyrt and the First Appellate Court formed an opinion that the suit premises were governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hereinafter The Act, for short and inasmuch as any ground for eviction under Section 12 of the Act was number made out as the appellant failed in proving the tenant to be a defaulter and the appellants need for self occupation, the suit was directed to be dismissed.
P 4 issued on 1.11.1990 and served on 5.11.1990, the appellant terminated the tenancy of the respondent giving the later more than 15 days time for vacating the suit premises, whereafter the suit was filed.
One of the pleas raised by the landlord from the very beginning was that because the ownership in the suit premises vested in the municipality, the applicability of The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was number attracted and entitlement for eviction was to be decided under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1961 only.
2003 3 SCR 1073 The Order of the Court is as follows A suit for eviction filed by the appellant against the respondent has been directed to be dismissed by the two companyrts below.
Non payment of rent by the respondent and the need of the plaintiff of occupy the suit premises for herself were pleaded as grounds of eviction.
This is an appeal filed by the landlord by special leave.
The appellant took the premises from the municipal companyncil on lease and sub let the same to the respondent herein.
Vide numberice Exh.
Thus qua the municipality, appellant is the tenant and the respondent is sub tenant and as between the latter two, appellant is the landlord and respondent is the tenant.
