Son Includes Stepson, Landlord Can Seek Tenant's Eviction For Stepson's Bona Fide Need: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a stepson is included in the definition of a member of the family under Section 2 of the Act and therefore would be deemed a son for the purposes of eviction under Section 12(1) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 323]Restoring the order of the Trial Court in the eviction suit against the tenant, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed that the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant on bona fide requirement for himself/herself or any other family member, including a stepson."When a 'foster son' is included within the meaning of a 'son' for purposes of eviction suit, there is no reason for not including a 'stepson' for purposes of need under Section 12(1)(e) & (f) of the Act. It is thus held that a stepson would be a son within the meaning of Section 12(1)(e) & (f) of the Act". Per the facts, the plaintiff is the daughter of Anand Rao Matkari, who was the original owner of the suit shop. She was married to Anand Kumar and adopted Ashutosh, who was born out of Anand Kumar's first marriage with his late wife, Aarti. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit shop in 1972 for non-residential purposes by Anand Rao Matkari. After the demise of Matkari, the defendant started paying rent to the plaintiff, establishing the tenant-landlord relationship between them. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the defendant's eviction from the suit shop on the grounds that it is needed by Ashutosh under Section 12(1)(f) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the same was overturned by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff cannot ask the defendant to evict, as Ashutosh, being a stepson, is not covered by the definition of a member of the family under Section 2. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that Section 12 does not discriminate between son and stepson. Opposing the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendants argued that the term son does not include stepson, relying on the case of Gopinath Nainsukh v Girdhardass Visheshwardas [1977 MPLJ 358]. The counsel argued that the property belonged exclusively to the plaintiff, as she received the same from the father in partition, and therefore the son of her husband from his first marriage would not be entitled to the benefits which would have been available to the plaintiff's own son. The court noted that the primary issue was "Whether, the son would include the stepson within the meaning of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?"The court noted that an eviction suit is governed by the Act of 1961 and that Section 2(e) defines member of the family and includes spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grand-father, mother, grand-mother, brother, unmarried sister, paternal uncle, paternal uncle's wife or widow, or brother's son or unmarried daughter living jointly with, or any other relation dependent on him.The court further noted that Section 12(1) provides for the eviction of a tenant on the bona fide requirement of the landlord for residential and non-residential purposes. The court noted that under the said section, eviction can be sought on the bona fide need of the landlord for himself or any of his major sons or unmarried daughters. The court further noted that the Apex Court judgment in Lachman Singh placed the stepson beneath the biological child while considering property devolution to a female Hindu who dies intestate under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the court noted that the issue to be considered was whether the said case could be applied for Section 12 of the 1961 Act, wherein a woman seeks the suit premises for her stepson during her lifetime. Thus, the bench held, "Ashutosh is the son of Anand Kumar from his first wife. There is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff's marriage with Anand Kumar. There is no conflict between the plaintiff and Ashutosh. Therefore, merely because Ashutosh was not born from plaintiff's womb, it cannot be said that the plaintiff cannot seek defendants' eviction for the need of Ashutosh". Therefore, the court held that the appellate court erred in stating that since the first floor of the suit shop is free, the accommodation of the ground floor could not be sought.The court stated, "the aforesaid finding of the Appellate Court is also not acceptable inasmuch as mere availability of accommodation is not sufficient, such alternate accommodation should also be suitable for the need of plaintiff". Therefore, the court held that the Appellate Court grossly erred in declining the decree of eviction of the plaintiff. The bench accordingly restored the Trial Court's judgment. Case Title: Vijaya Rizbud v Deepak Kumar Mishra, SECOND APPEAL No.1544 of 2005Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 323For Plaintiff/Appellant: Advocate P.K. GohadkarFor Respondents: Advocate J.P. Mishra Click here to read/download the Order

Son Includes Stepson, Landlord Can Seek Tenant's Eviction For Stepson's Bona Fide Need: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Son Includes Stepson, Landlord Can Seek Tenant's Eviction For Stepson's Bona Fide Need: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers