Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 143
2011 (2) JLJ 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Abhay M. Naik, J.
Jagdish Babu Raijaada
Vs.
Sanval Das Gupta
S.A. No. 105 of 2006
Decided On: 13.02.2011
Headnote:.
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼>½ && vfHk/kkjh dk iRuh vU; fjDr Hkou ij dCtk && ifr&iRuh dk lkFk&lkFk jguk rFkk Lusgiw.kZ laca/k vfookfnr && iRuh dk Hkou Lo;a vfHk/kkjh }kjk vftZr ekuk tk,xk && bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] gd dk dksbZ lg&laca/k ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds [kaM ¼1½ ¼>½ ds v/khu] vU; Hkou ds fjDr dCts ds vtZu ij cy fn;k x;k gS] ftldk vFkZ gS fd vU; Hkou vfHk/kkjh }kjk mlds fuokl ds fy, fjDr voLFkk esa mi;qDrrk ls vftZr fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg, Fkk ftldk gd ls dksbZ lg&laca/k ugha gSA
izLrqr ekeys esa] izfroknh&vihykFkhZ ;g izdFku rFkk lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk gS fd mls f‘koiqjh esa izkbZosV cl vM~Ms ds ihNs fLFkr ml Hkou esa fuokl djus ls fdlh dkj.k ls vleFkZ dj fn;k x;k Fkk] tks uxjikfyd vfHkys[k esa Lokeh ds :i esa mldh iRuh ds uke ij vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k FkkA ;g mldk i{kdFku ugha gS fd mldh iRuh mDr Hkou esa i`Fkd~ :i ls fuokl dj jgh Fkh rFkk iRuh ds }kjk mls fuokl djus ls jksdk x;k FkkA blds izfrdwy] fo}ku vihy U;k;k/kh‘k us vfHkys[k ij lkexzh dh lE;d~ foospuk djus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd izfroknh us vius dqVqac lfgr vfHkdfFkr :i ls viuh iRuh ds LokfeRo okys mDr Hkou esa viuk fuokl LFkkukarfjr fd;k Fkk] tks mlds fuokl ds fy, mi;qDr FkkA blfy,] izfroknh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ds [kaM ¼>½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fy, nk;h gSA ¼1989½4 ,l lh lh 612] ¼1998½2 ,l lh lh 1] , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 2256] , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2220 rFkk 1998 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 50 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 2004¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 344 voyafcrA 1983 ts ,y ts ,l ,u 61 folEerA
¼iSjk 20 ,oa 19½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼>½ & vfHk/kkjh dh iRuh dk vU; fjDr Hkou ij dCtk && bl vk/kkj ij vfHk/kkjh HkkM+s ds Hkou ls csn[ky fd, tkus ds fy, nk;h && mldh iRuh ds Hkou dk i‘pkr~orhZ fodz; mls csn[ky fd, tkus ls laj{k.k ugha nsxkA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1492 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1995 fnYyh 140 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 21½
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This second appeal has been preferred against decree for eviction granted in favour of Plaintiff/Respondent against Defendant/Appellant on grounds under Section 12(1)(a), (e) and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Short facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the Plaintiff/Respondent instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, with allegations that he owns House No. 1078/8 situated in Municipal Ward No. 8, Hammal Mohalla, Shivpuri. Suit premises comprised in two rooms and one varanda on first floor is occupied by Defendant/Appellant as tenant at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month for residential purpose. Defendant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1-4-1982, which has not been paid, despite refusal of registered demand notice on 20-2-2003. Suit premises is required bona fide by the Plaintiff for residence of his son Dinesh and grandson Navin son of Shyam Sunder. He has no alternative vacant accommodation of his own to accommodate the aforesaid family members for fulfilling need. This apart, Defendant has acquired a house near private bus stand in Shivpuri for his residence and has shifted there for residence with his family members. Defendant/Appellant submitted his written statement stating therein that the suit house belongs to the Plaintiff as well as his brother Badri Prasad. Rent was paid up to 24-1-2003. It was denied that the Defendant has acquired any other accommodation for his residence and has shifted there. Alleged residential need for Dinesh and grandson Navin was also denied. It was stated in specific that Plaintiff has various other suitable vacant accommodations for alleged residential purpose.
3. After recording the evidence, learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11-4-2005 granted decree for eviction merely, on ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by it, Defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 37-A/2005. Plaintiff also submitted cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying thereby decree for eviction also on grounds under Section 12(1)(e) and (i) of the Act. Learned lower appellate Judge vide his impugned judgment and decree dated 22-12-2005 dismissed the appeal preferred by Defendant and further accepted the cross-objections on grounds under Section 12(1)(e) and (i) of the Act. Accordingly, decree for eviction has been granted on grounds under Section 12(1)(a), (e) and (i) of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, Defendant preferred the present second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether both the Courts below have committed an error of law with regard to granting the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act with regard to arrears of rent?
(2) Whether the first appellate Court was right in granting a decree for bona fide need of landlord in view of Section 12(1)(e) of the Act?
(3) Whether the first Appellate Court was right in reversing the findings of the fact of the trial Court and granting decree in view of Section 12(1)(i) of the Act?
6. Plaintiff-Respondent, in the present appeal, submitted an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. No. 7113/2007) with certified copy of municipal entry in respect of house situated near Middle School boundary in Ward No. 26, Shivpuri, which is recorded in the name of Appellant's wife, namely, Smt. Vimla Devi as owner of the house.
Appellant's learned Counsel during the course of arguments submitted a photocopy of registered sale-deed dated 9-8-1984 in rebuttal of the document submitted by Respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure Code, which has not been opposed by the Respondent's learned Counsel. It reveals that the house alleged to have been acquired by the Defendant was owned by his wife which was sold by her vide the said registered sale-deed.
7. Learned Counsel for t
