Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act

INTRODUCTION

The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short, The Act) The Accommodation Act is an Act to provide the legislation and control of letting and rent of accommodation. It provides the law relating to expeditious trial of eviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of landlord.

This act was first published in the Madhya Pradesh newspaper on 30th December 1961. The purpose of this act was to regulate the control of rent of accommodations, and also so that the trial takes place expeditiously and the eviction cases on ground of "bona fide" requirement of tenants from accommodations or any other incidental matter.

Short title, extent and commencement. –

(1) It is called The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2) Including the entire state of Madhya Pradesh.

(3) It will be applied in the first instance in the areas mentioned in the first schedule. Application of the act shall happen in any other area of the state or any other state after a notification is issued to the government and the authorities under the first schedule.

Act not to apply to certain accommodations. –

(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to-

(a) Any government property accommodation

(b) Any non-residential property accommodation of a local authority

(2) The Government may, by notification, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any accommodation which is owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution or by any nursing or maternity home, the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for that institution or nursing home or maternity home.

Provisions Regarding Rent

• Provisions of the Chapter not to apply to certain accommodations for a specified period.
• Rent in excess of standard rent not recoverable.
• Unlawful charges not to be claimed or received.
• Standard rent.
• Lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and recovery of other charges.
• Notice of increase of rent.
• Rent Controlling Authority to fix standard rent, etc
• Fixation of interim rent.

CASE LAWS

Ragavendra Kumar V. Firm Prem Machinery & co.

The plaintiff had filed a suit under the MP Accommodation Act. He required the suit premises for opening his showroom of Ind-Suzuki Motorcycles as he was the sub dealer. The trial court observed that the plaintiff was in a bona fide need for the disputed premises as there was no other premise available in the arena for doing the business. Therefore the lower court dismissed the appeal of the defendant and upheld the trial court’s judgment.

The high court was of the view that the courts have wrongly placed the onus of the defendant tenant of proving that alternative accommodation was not suitable for the plaintiff landlord and that the courts below had ignored the fact that the plaintiff landlord had admitted that he and his father were in possession of certain shops and had not stated why these alternative shops were not suitable for their business or they were vacant. On these grounds the learned Single Judge set aside both the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

The lower courts took the preponderance of the evidence but not the burden of proof into account. The two questions framed by the high court got answers contrary to the judgement of the lower courts. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgement of the lower court.

Himadri Pal v. Rajeev Rawat And Others

The applicant has filed a revision petition challenging the order of eviction passed by the rent controlling authority. The counsel for the respondent observed that the revision petition was not maintainable. The tenant must submit an application within 15 days for a leave to defend the case for service of summons. Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that as per provision of Section 23-C of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, applicant can file an application for setting aside the order of eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority. It is submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw civil revision with liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 23-C of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The court held that no application was filed by the applicant, that is the basic requirement for the contest. Thus, the civil revision filed is not maintainable hence the plea was dismissed.

State Of M.P And Another V. Chintamani Agarwal (SMT) and Others

1. Special leave granted.

2. The State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act), exempted all buildings owned by the Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board (Board) from the operation of the Act. The notification granting exemption to the Board under the above-mentioned provision of the Act was challenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed the notification on the short ground that there was no material before the State Government to reach the satisfaction that it was necessary to issue the impugned notification.

The High Court quashed the notification on the short ground that there was no material before the State Government to reach the satisfaction that it was necessary to issue the impugned notification. Learned counsel for the State of M.P has invited our attention to the letter by the then Prime Minister of India addressed to the Chief Minister of the State of M.P, suggesting, for the reasons given in the said letter; to grant exemption of the provisions of the Act to the properties owned by the Wakf. Thereafter, the State of M.P made enquiries from various other States in this respect. On receipt of the replies, the matter was considered and thereafter, the exemption notification was issued. We are satisfied that there was sufficient material before the State Government for issuing the impugned notification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We seek support from the judgment of this Court in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of TN Learned counsel for the respondents, however, states that the respondents are prepared to pay the market rent provided the Board permits them to continue as tenants. The respondents may approach the Board in this respect. Learned counsel appearing for the Board very fairly states that the offers of the respondents will be considered sympathetically. The appeal is disposed of.

Sayeda Akhtar v Abdulahad

The appellant here was the landlord. He filed a suit for eviction for non-payment of rent and causing nuisance. Neither did the tenant pay for the rent nor sent any notice for extension. The trial court passed the order for eviction. However, the high court passed the order of the appeal. The high court observed that the default committed by the tenant observed condonation and the court should have given more time to pay the rent.

In its impugned judgment, the High Court did not adhere to the said question at all. It set aside the aforementioned findings purported to be on the ground that no issue was framed by the trial court on the point of nuisance. The High Court in the second appeal could not have without sufficient and just reasons interfered with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. Therefore, the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. In view of the matter, the appeal succeeded and was allowed. The judgment under challenge was set aside and the decree of the trial court was restored.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE