The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench ruled on December 22 that the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 only applies to the property in question and is not dependent on the tenant-landlord relationship. Observations that were made by the Justice Pranay Verma-led bench are

"...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."

According to the facts of the case, the Appellant's grandfather had leased the suit property (a shop) from the Nagar Palika. Later, through his Will, his grandfather left the appellant his ownership interests in the shop. As a result, Nagar Palika extended his lease. The grandfather of the appellant had sublet the shop to the defendants' father before he passed away in exchange for a monthly rent.

The Appellant filed a lawsuit for eviction against the Defendants because they were not paying the rent, along with a claim for damages. The trial court passed a judgment in the plaintiff's favour and concluded that because Nagar Palika owned the property, the Act of 1961's restrictions did not apply to the situation. The Respondents/Defendants chose to appeal the aforementioned decree before the lower appellate court, which ultimately overturned the trial court's decision. It was decided that as the exception under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act only applies to cases involving owner-lessee relationships and not lessee-sublessee relationships, it would not be relevant in the case. It further stated that the decree for eviction could not be upheld since the Appellant/Plaintiff had failed to establish any of the grounds listed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act against the Respondents/Defendants. The Appellant/Plaintiff, outraged, chose to appeal to the Court.

The court further concluded that the appellant's claims had merit. It was noted that the subject matter's legal precedent had established that the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act applied to the property itself and not to the landlord-tenant relationship, making it immune from the Act's 1961 provisions. As a result, the Court agreed with the trial court's conclusions.

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.

In light of this, the Court nullified the ruling and order made by the lower appellate court and reinstated the trial court's eviction order in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

Case Title: NARENDRA VERSUS NARENDRA
Citation: SECOND APPEAL No. 451 of 2019