Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Kamlesh Jain - Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Jain And Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1486 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2020
Trespasser - Property Dispute - M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Section 25, Section 26 - The court discussed the evidence available on record and held that the appellant was a trespasser. The finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is not perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who was a tenant in a house, was alleged to have vacated the house belonging to one owner and illegally entered the part of the house belonging to another owner. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction, mesne profit, and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court and the Appellate Court found that the appellant was a trespasser and dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant.
Issues: The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant included the verdict treating the appellant as an encroacher, the end of tenancy after family partition, the valuation of the suit, the decision on an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., the maintainability of the suit under the MP Accommodation Control Act, and the consideration of the Rent Control Authority's finding in the civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was a trespasser based on the evidence available on record and the findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court. The court also addressed the various substantial questions of law raised by the appellant and found no merit in them.
Final Decision: The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant was defendant before the trial court and he had filed the suit for vacant possession of suit property, mesne profit for the month July 2009 till realization.
2. As per the plaintiffs case Smt. Kasturi Bai and Smt. Sundar Bai had purchased a house at Subhash Chowk in the year 1948 from one Shri Subrati. Smt. Sundar Bai had sold her half share of the suit property to Parchamal on 1.11. 2008. After death of Smt. Kasturi Bai, the plaintiffs who were her successors got the suit property that is house in question. At that time, there were two tenants in the house. Plaintiffs give notice to tenant who was living in the lower part of the house. He gave possession of the house to the plaintiffs. In the part of the house of Sundar Bai, Kamlesh Jain the present appellant was tenant. At the time of registry by Sundar Bai that is on 1.11.2008 Kamlesh Jain after receiving an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- vacated the house and illegally entered in the part of the house belonging to Kasturi Bai. Plaintiffs received information on 14.7.2009 and they filed a report at Police Station Balaghat but no action has been taken therefore, they have to file the present suit for eviction, mesne profit and possession.
3. Plaintiffs had filed a suit before the Controlling Authority Balaghat under Section 25 and 26 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for payment of rent. Rent Controlling Authority has dismissed the suit on the ground that non-applicants were not tenant of the applicant that is the plaintiffs and defendants were held to be as trespasser. Respondents had filed their written statements before the trial Court and they had admitted that house in question belongs to plaintiff who is owner of suit property. The defendants were tenant in the said house and rent is taken by Arun Kumar son of Sundar Bai. Application was dismissed by Rent Controlling Authority on the ground of non-appearance and not on merits. Suit is filed maliciously to harass the defendants.
4. Learned trial Court allowed and decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018. Appellant has challenged the judgment and decree before the First Appellate Court. First appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Court and judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed.
5. Being aggrieved by decree dated 03.05.2019 appellant has filed the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:--
(a) Whether verdict of both the Courts below is perverse in treating appellant as encroacher ?
Appellant had relied on document Ex.D-3, Ex.D-5, Ex.D-6 and Ex.D- 8 to show that he was tenant of respondents. Said documents had not been believed by the trial Court as in said documents plaintiffs were not a signatory and further trial Court has also relied on the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority which has become final. Plaintiffs and their witnesses namely PW-1 Sangeeta, PW-2 Rakesh Gupta, PW-3 Rakesh Jain and PW-4 Ajay Jain, has unequivocally stated that appellant was a trespasser. On basis of evidence available on record and also considering the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, trial Court has held that appellant was a trespasser. Similarly, appellate Court has also discussed the evidence available on record and held that appellant was trespasser. The finding of trial Court as well as appellate Court is not perverse and no substantial question of law number one arises in the second appeal.
(b) Whether tenancy itself came to an end over rented property after family partition ?
It has already been decided by the trial Court as well as appellate Court that appellant was not a tenant therefore this substantial question of law does not arise in second appeal.
(c) Whether suit is not maintainable as suit is not valued properly as per market value of property and according to valuation list of Sub registrar Balaghat ?
Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court had held that no evidence has been led by appellant to s
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
