JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2015 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.10-A/2015 whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit filed for eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(m) of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction with the allegations that they are owners of the suit property bearing plot No.10, 11 & 12 having Municipal House No.1374, total area 45000 sq.ft over which a house is constructed over an area 2360 sq.ft which came in ownership of the plaintiffs on the basis of registered gift deed dated 17.5.1976 executed by their father late Shri Tatarao Narla. It is alleged that on 1.11.2007 an agreement of tenancy was executed for a period 60 months in between the appellant/plaintiff 1 and defendant whereby the suit property was let out for residential purpose on monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, with the stipulation that the lessee shall not change nature of property without previous consent of the lessor, but contrary to the terms of the lease, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiffs informing that necessary maintenance of the house in question has been done in which an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was spent and the house still requires a lot of maintenance work, thereupon the plaintiff visited the suit property and found that the defendant has constructed a godown, servant quarter & garage in the open area of the suit property without consent of the plaintiffs. As a result thereof the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 20.4.2009 to the defendant terminating the lease with the further instructions to him to vacate the premises within a period of 15 days, but by sending false reply he denied the averments of notice and contended that he has raised construction of servant quarter, garage and store room with prior permission of the plaintiffs and it is of temporary nature. With these allegations the suit was filed.

3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint, however agreement of tenancy and construction raised by the defendant was admitted with the contentions that the temporary construction made by him has not materially altered the rented accommodation to the detriment of the landlord’s interest and has not diminished its value. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as six issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of their case the plaintiffs examined Gangadhar Narla (PW-1), Madhulika Ram Badlani (PW-2), Kiran Raghunath Kerhalkar (PW-3) and submitted documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/11). In turn the defendant- Nalin Gala (DW-1) examined himself and submitted documentary evidence (Ex.D-1 & D-2).

5. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court on the basis of available evidence found relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties but for want of requisite stamp duty and egistration, the lease deed dated 1.11.2007 was held to be inadmissible in evidence, although it was not produced on record. At the same time while deciding issue No.2 it was held that the defendant has raised construction on the open land without plaintiffs’ permission and has breached the agreement of tenancy dated 1.11.2007, however refused to pass decree of eviction vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4.9.2015. Against which the instant first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that although learned Court below has held the lease deed to be inadmissible in evidence for want of requisite stamp duty and its registration, but in view of admitted relationship of landlord and tenant it has no adverse effect and she submits that in view of the affirmative finding