http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2573 of 2004

PETITIONER: Syed Jameel Abbas & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/04/2004

BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19058/2003)

WITH  

Civil Appeal Nos. _____________/2004  (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19142-19143/2003)

R.C. Lahoti, J.

       Leave granted in all the three SLPs.

       The appellants are the landlords and the three respondents in  the three appeals are three tenants in three shop-premises belonging  to the appellants.  Proceedings for eviction of the tenant-respondents  were initiated by the landlord-appellants on the ground available under  clause (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation  Control Act, 1961, hereinafter, the Act, for short, alleging the bona  fide requirement of the landlords for the purpose of re-building the  shops.  The suit was decreed.  As required by Section 18 of the Act,  the Court appointed the time for vacating of the premises by the  tenants accompanied by direction for reoccupation by the tenants after  the premises have been rebuilt.

       On 13.11.00 the tenants vacated the premises and delivered  possession to the landlords.  One year’s time was allowed to the  landlords for completing the rebuilding and offering the premises for  reoccupation by the tenants.  The landlords failed to honour their  obligation of offering the shops for reoccupation by the tenants.  The  tenants initiated proceedings for restoration of possession and  compensation for breach of obligation by the landlords.  They  succeeded from the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court as also from  the High Court. Feeling aggrieved the landlords have filed these  appeals by special leave.

       It is notable that the Trial Court has not only directed  possession being restored to the tenants but has also directed a  compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to be  paid by the landlords to each of the tenants.

       During the course of hearing we tried to explore the possibility  of settlement between the parties.  The landlords have produced a site  plan of newly built premises for the perusal of the Court. It appears  that a huge shopping complex has come up in place of the old  building. There are 18 shops on the ground floor.  The landlords  offered to the tenants the three shops situated contiguously, each  measuring  8’ x 8’.  on the north-eastern end of the building.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

shops were not acceptable to the tenant-respondents for reoccupation  mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the shops were situated on the back  part of the building at a distance from  the front portion of the building  while the shops they had vacated  were situated in the front portion of  the old building abutting on the main road.  Secondly, the area of the  shops was much less compared to the area of the shops previously in  occupation of the tenants.  There were other incidental and ancillary  disputes.  However, the learned counsel for the respondents has been  able to persuade the respondents to occupy the shops offered by the  landlords and it is reported that on 2nd April, 2004 three shops  measuring  8’ x 8’  each have been occupied by the three tenant- respondents.  This brings to an end one and the major part of the  controversy.

       The learned senior counsel for the landlord-appellants submitted  that as the tenant-respondents had delayed in delivery of possession  over the erstwhile tenancy premises therefore they had lost their right  to reoccupation.  Still in deference to the wishes of the Court they  have given possession to the tenant-respondents over three shops.  Therefore, the respondents must agree to pay rent at the rate of  Rs.1500/- per month per shop as is the prevalent market rate and  being paid by other tenants of the adjoining shops.  Secondly,  submitted the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the  direction as to payment of compensation by the appellants to the  respondents should be set aside as the same is unjust and uncalled  for.  The Court has not recorded any evidence nor the respondents  have brought any material on record of the Court to form an opinion  that the quantum of loss allegedly suffered by each of the respondents  was at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month.

       We do not propose to enter into niceties and perpetuate the  litigation.  Inasmuch as the principal and major part of the controversy  has come to an end by the landlords having offered three shops to the  three tenant-respondents and the shops have also been occupied by  them, the remaining other disputes need a summary burial and that  can be done by making reasonable directions.  We agree with the  learned counsel for the landlord-appellants that in the absence of any  material supporting the finding, the direction for payment of  compensation to each of the tenant-respondents at the rate of  Rs.3,000/- per month for the period for which they have been out of  occupation cannot be sustained.  The learned counsel for the tenant- respondents has conveyed the willingness on the part of the tenant- respondents to  pay reasonable rent to the landlord-appellants in view  of the premises having been newly constructed.

       In our opinion, the same rent which is being paid by the tenants  in the adjoining shops would be a fair measure of rent which the  tenant-respondents should be directed to pay.  However, what is the  rent which is being paid by those tenants is not clear from the record.  

       All the three appeals are disposed of in terms of the following  directions :-

(1)     The three tenant-respondents who have entered into possession  of the three shops on 2nd April, 2004 situated in the north-east  corner of the building shall be deemed to be holding the shops  in their respective possession as tenants with effect from 2nd  April, 2004.  They will execute such rent notes in favour of  landlords as may be approved by the trial Court.  If the terms of  lease are not settled then the tenancy between the parties shall  remain one for non-residential purpose running month by  month.

(2)     The Trial Court shall ascertain the rent which is being paid by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the tenants in the adjoining shops preferably the three shops  which are of the dimension of  8’-0"x8’,  7’-10"x8’ and  7’- 8"x8’  and appoint the same rent to be paid by each of the three  tenants to the landlords month by month with effect from 2nd  April, 2004.

(3)     The tenant-respondents are entitled for payment of  compensation for the period commencing 13th November, 2001  upto 9th April, 2003, the day of the order of the High Court  reserving three shops for occupation by the tenants and which  the tenants refused to occupy.  The rate of compensation  payable by the landlords to the tenants shall be calculated at  the same rate at which rent is appointed by the Trial Court for  payment by the tenants to the landlords.  It shall be in the  discretion of the Trial Court to direct the compensation being  paid by the landlords to the tenants lumpsum or to direct the  same being adjusted as against payment of rent by the tenants  to landlords after the amount of compensation has been  quantified.           The appeals stand disposed of in terms abovesaid.  Costs as  incurred.