Uday Chand Jain vs Smt. Sharda Jain

Sanjay Yadav, J.

Heard on admission.

Having lost from both the Courts, the defendant tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 01-A/2011 affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2010 in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2009, has preferred this second appeal. Suit Property is a house bearing No. 1008 situated at Andherdeo being owned by the plaintiff after the death of her husband who received the same vide partition. One portion of the suit property, marked as ABCD in the suit map was given on rent to the defendant on 17.10.1985 under Rent Agreement for a period of twenty years which having expired and being not vacated despite of its being required for the purpose of establishing gem and jewellery shop by plaintiffs'' son led her to file a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need u/s 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 Defendant contradicted the claim and denied the bona fide requirement stating that suit accommodation is only required to be re-rented on a higher premium and rent. It was also pleaded that there is no specific pleadings in the plaint as to bona fide need.

Trial Court framed seven issues on the basis of pleadings of which issue No. 4 pertain to bona fide need as to whether the suit premises is required bona fide to establish the gem and jewellery business for the son and issue No. 5 as to whether there is no alternative suitable accommodation available in the town. ''These issues has been answered in favour of plaintiff in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment by trial Court which as apparent therefrom is on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led in commensurate therewith. These findings are even affirmed by the first appellate Court.

Though attempt has been made on behalf of the defendant by hair splitting the pleadings to substantiate that there is no specific pleadings regarding the bona fide need and that an evidence led in absence of pleadings ought not to have been looked into.

True it is that variance between pleadings and the evidence looses significance. Equally it is settled that the Court should not scrutinise the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial ground.

In Madan Gopal Kanodia Vs. Mamraj Maniram and Others, it has been held that

26.......It is well-settled that pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleading with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds.......

Furthermore, it has also come to be settled that the pleadings has to be read as whole to ascertain its true import and not to cull out a passage to read the same in isolation (See Shri Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, wherein it is observed "30. We are afraid, this ingenious method of construction after compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversion of the language of the paragraph, suggested by Counsel, runs counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation, according to which, a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context, in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words, or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention'' of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as a whole.")

In Syed Dastagir Vs. T.R. Gopalakrishnasetty, it has been held:

9...............In construing a plea in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of ones case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, some times vague but still could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depends on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsels hence aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole...............

In the present context reference can be had of the decision in S.B. Noronah Vs. Prem Kumari Khanna, wherein it is held:

Pleadings are not statutes and legalism is not verbalism. Common sense should not be kept in cold storage when pleadings are construed. It is too plain for words that the petition for eviction referred to the lease between the parties which undoubtedly was in writing. The application, read as a whole, did imply that and we are clear that law should not be stultified by courts by sanctifying little omissions as fatal flaws. The application for vacant possession suffered from no verbal lacunae and there was no need to amend at all. Parties win or lose on substantial questions, not ''technical tortures'' and courts cannot be ''abettors''.

In the case at hand in paragraph 6 and 7 of suit plaint it is categorically stated that the suit premises is required for the purpose establishing business for younger son. To have a glimpse of the pleadings the same are reproduced:

Nothing more is required to be pleaded as to bona fide need. The evidence led by the plaintiff is not in variance but in consonance with the pleadings. Both the courts therefore are well within their right in construing that the plaintiff has proved that the premises is required for bona fide need and that there is no alternative premises available. There being no perversity with findings, no interference is caused. In view whereof second appeal fails and is dismissed at admission stage. Costs as incurred.