Back
2006(3) JLJ 93
A.M. Naik, J.
Ram Pukar Singh v. Bhimsen and another
Second Appeal No. 887 of 2002 : against the judgment and decree of
First Appellate Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 85-A of 2002;
Decided on 15.9.2005.
Appeal is heard on the following substantial question of law :
"Whether the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, particularly when the plaintiffd`respondents failed to prove that they are owners of the suit house?" [Para 1
Held : In a case where ownership is required to be proved, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to merely establish his landlordship. He is also required simultaneously to prove that he is owner of the suit premises. However, there is a difference of degree of proof in a suit for eviction based on the relationship of landlord and tenant and in a suit for possession based on title. Both kinds of suits cannot be treated at par. The burden of proving ownership in a suit between landlord and tenant where the landlord-tenant relationship is either admitted or proved is not so heavy as in a title suit, and lesser quantum of proof may suffice than what can be needed in a suit based on title against a person setting up a contending title while disputing the title of the plaintiff. [Para 9
I hold that there is sufficient proof regarding ownership of the plaintiff No.1 for the purpose of eviction under the provision of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffd`respondent in a concurrent manner. 1988 JLJ 560 (SC) and 2002(2) JLJ 312 discussed. [Para 14
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.116 -- tenant admitting payment of rent to plaintiff -- further pleaded in written statement that he entered into an agreement with plaintiff to sell tenanted premises -- is estopped from challenging the ownership of plaintiff. 1994 JLJ 486 (SC) followed. [Para 13
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.2(b) -- ‘landlord‘ -- may even be devoid of ownership within the meaning of the Act. [Para 9
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.8 R.5 -- pleading of fact in plaint -- not denied specifically -- pleading no knowledge of the fact -- does not tentamount to denial or even an implied denial. 1978 JLJ 879 relied on. AIR 1967 SC 109 followed. [Para 11
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼³½ rFkk 12¼1½¼p½ && csn[kyh ds fy, okn && Hkw&Lokeh dks ^Hwk&LokfeRo* ds vfrfjDr ^LokfeRo* Hkh lkfcr djuk gksrk gS && lcwr dh og ek=k vko‘;d ugha gS tSlh gd ij vk/kkfjr dCts ds fy, okn esa vko‘;d gSA vihy fof/k es fuEufyf[kr lkjoku~ iz‘u ij lquh xbZ gS % ^^D;k fupys U;k;ky;ksa us e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fy, okn fMØh dj xyrh dh] fof‘k‘Vr% tc oknh&izRFkhZx.k ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs fd og oknxzLr edku ds Lokeh gSa \** ¼iSjk 1 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ftl ekeys esa LokfeRo lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS] oknh }kjk dsoy viuk Hkw&LokfeRo LFkkfir fd;k tkuk i;kZIr ugha gSA lkFk&lkFk mlds }kjk ;g Hkh lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS fd og oknxzLr ifjlj dk Lokeh gSA rFkkfi] Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh ds laca/k ij vk/kkfjr csn[kyh ds fy, okn rFkk gd ij vk/kkfjr dCts ds fy, okn esa lcwr dh ek=k fHkUu gSA nksuksa izdkj ds okn lerqY; ugha ekus tk ldrsA Hkw&Lokeh vkSj vfHk/kkjh ds e/; okn esa] tgk¡ Hkw&Lokeh&vfHk/kkjh laca/k Lohd`r ;k fQj lkfcr gS] LokfeRo lkfcr djus dk Hkkj mruk vf/kd ugha gS ftruk gd laca/kh okn esa gksrk gS] rFkk oknh dk gd fooknxzLr djrs gq, izfr;ksxh gd [kM+k djus okys O;fDr ds fo:) gd ij vk/kkfjr okn esa tks vko‘;d gks ldrk gS mls de ek=k esa lcwr i;kZIr gks ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 9 eSa vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrk gw¡ fd e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu csn[kyh ds iz;kstu ds fy, oknh Ø-1 ds LokfeRo ds ckjs esa i;kZIr lcwr gSa rFkk nksuksa fupys U;k;ky;ksa us ,d&gh jhfr esa okn oknh&izRFkhZ ds i{k esa fMØh dj dksbZ voS/krk ugha dh gSA 1988 ts ,y ts 560 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 312 foosfprA ¼iSjk 14 ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 116 && vfHk/kkjh }kjk oknh dks HkkM+s dk lank; Lohd`r && blds vfrfjDr fyf[kr dFku esa vfHkokd~ fd mlus oknh ls vfHk/k`r ifjlj foØ; djus dk djkj fd;k && oknh dk LokfeRo vkf{kIr djus ls focaf/kr gSA 1994 ts ,y ts 486 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13 ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼[k½ && ^Hkw&Lokeh* && vf/kfu;e ds vFkkZarxZr LokfeRo jfgr Hkh gks ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 9 ¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-8 fu-5 && okni= esa rF; dk vfHkokd~ && fofufnZ"Vr% izR;k[;ku ugha fd;k x;k && rF; dh tkudkjh ugha gksus dk vfHkokd~ && izR;k[;ku ;k foof{kIr izR;k[;ku dh Hkh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA 1978 ts ,y ts 879 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 109 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11
Naik, J. -- 1. Appeal is heard on the following substantial question of law :
"Whether the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, particularly when the plaintiff-respondents failed to prove that they are owners of the suit house?"
2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against defendant-appellant in respect of the suit premises comprised in Survey No. 83/1 situated in Municipal Ward No. 10 of Sidhi, Amha. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit house is owned by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 who has been unwell physically and mentally for last number of years and due to this the suit house is being looked-after by the plaintiff-respondent No.2 being his wife. It is further pleaded that the suit house was let out to the defendant by the plaintiffs @ Rs.100/- per month as rent. Some 15 years before the institution of the suit, the rent was increased from time to time and finally the same became payable at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from the year 1990. It is further pleaded that the rent is due w.e.f. March, 1991. The defendant is residing in the Government quarter No.3 after its allotment in his favour. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit premises is required bona fide by them for residing therein as they want to reside permanently in the city of Sidhi on account of availability of the facilities pertaining to education of the children and medical. It is also stated in the plaint that the disputed premises is in dilapidated condition and the plaintiffs want to reconstruct it after demolition of the existing accommodation. The defendant-appellant submitted his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiffs. They inter alia contended that they are not aware of the title of the house stated to be situated in Survey No. 83/1. It is further stated that a kachcha house is situated in Survey No. 81 of village Amha which was obtained by the defendant-appellant on rent @ Rs.40/- per month from plaintiff No.1 and one person blamed Ganga Prasad. It was disclosed at that time that the said house belonged to Ganga Prasad. It was settled as per the defendant that he would pay the rent to the defendant No.1 for the said Ganga Prasad. As regards the arrears of rent, it is stated in the written statement that the defendant paid the rent upto May, 1993 in a regular manner to the plaintiff No.1 and is further prepared to pay rent w.e.f. June, 1993. As regards allotment of Government quarter No.3 to the defendant, it is stated in the written statement that the quarter was allotted to the defendant in the year 1991 which was not sufficient for the entire family of the defendant. Defendant is still residing in the suit house and the Government quarter has been occupied by the sons of the defendant. It is further submitted in the written statement that the plaintiffs are holding agricultural land in the village Bhuimad and there is no occasion for the plaintiffs to reside at Sidhi without any occupation. The defendant has further set-up a defence that an agreement of sale by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant was arrived at in the month of June, 1992 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. Since, the defendant was going to purchase the suit premises, he with the consent of the plaintiff No.1 made repairs by spending Rs.20,000/-. After such construction/repairs, the condition of the suit house is quite good and is not of dilapidated one. It is further stated that on account of escalation in the price, the plaintiff No.1 became dishonest and he is demanding a consideration. The defendant having denied to accept the request of defendant No.1 has thus, been wrongly sued under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction.
3. Learned trial Judge raised various issues including issues pertaining to creation of tenancy between plain
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
