Prem Narayan vs Ajit Kumar - 1999 Supreme(MP) 1058

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Lahoti.
For the Respondent: S.K. Jain.

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 21 R. 29 – suit by tenant against landlord – eviction decree – holder – point of agreement to sell raised in suit for specific performance failed upto High Court in eviction suit – decree cannot be stayed.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 115 – civil revision – no jurisdictional error pointed out – no interference permissible.
        Short Note
       1. This revision is by the plaintiff – applicant against the order dated 19.9.1998, passed by Civil Judge, Class I. Chachoda, district Guna in civil suit No. 80A/97 whereby the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC has been rejected.
       2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff Ajitkumar and four others, i.e. Arvind Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Santosh Kumar filed the suit for eviction against the defendant Premnarayan, under section 12(1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, on the ground of bona fide need, which was registered as C.S. No. 16A/91. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendant. It was denied that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property. It was contended that it was Tekaram, who was owner of the property and he let out the property to the defendant and about since 15 – 20 years the defendant has been resident there and in possession. It was pleaded that an agreement to sell the property in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ – was made between Tekaram and the defendant and Rs. 1,000/ – out of which was paid in advance and Rs. 19,000/ – was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale – deed. It was contended that the said agreement was made before the presence of the witnesses and it was made in favour of the defendant and the possession was handed over. It was further contended that the defendant was always ready to comply with the agreement's condition, but during the period, owner Tekaram died. It was submitted that the plaintiffs were aware of this fact of purchasing the property and inspite of knowing that they had purchased the property from the sons of Tekaram, namely Bhamarlal and Phoolsingh. It was contended that at the time of execution of the sale – deed, i.e. on 21.5.1985, the defendant was in possession of the suit property, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement entered between him and Tekaram and from 22.7.1981 there were no relationship of landlord and tenant between Tekaram and the defendant.
       3. The learned trial Court after framing the issues on the pleading and the contentions raised by the respective parties and considering the entire material and the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in their favour on 12.4.1994. Against that an appeal was preferred before the lower appellate Court by the defendant – applicant, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 11 A/96.
       4. The lower appellate Court also re – considered the matter and found on the basis of material on record that the plaintiffs have successfully proved their bona fide need for eviction and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the defendant by the judgment and decree dt. 18.10.1996. The defendant having been aggrieved by the said judgment and findings recorded by the first appellate Court, preferred a second appeal before this Court registered as S.A. No. 472/96, which too was dismissed on 8.5.1997 by this Court.
       5. It was contended that thereafter on 9.9.1997, the defendant – applicant filed a suit being C.S. No. 80A/97 for specific performance of the contract on the ground that an agreement was entered between the defendant and Tekaram previous owner of the property on 22.7.1981 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ – to purchase the property. In this suit, the defendant – applicant moved an application under order 21 Rule 29 CPC for staying the execution pending suit between decree holder and judgment – debtor, which has been rejected by the impugned order, which is being challenged in this revision – petition.
       6. It may be noted that the question raised by the defendant – applicant in his suit for specific performance was already taken in the written – statement filed by him before the trial Court in a civil suit No. 16A/91, filed by the plaintiffs for eviction against him and the trial Court has taken it into consideration and discussed the same in para 8 of the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1994 passed in that suit.
       7. The same was also contested before the first appellate Court by the applicant – defendant in first appeal No. 11A/96. The lower appellate Court recorded the same in para 5 of the judgment and decree and after going through the entire record came to the conclusion that the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of bonafide need and in holding that the plaintiffs have proved their title on the suit property, which was let out to the defendant for non – residential purposes, and in the result dismissed the appeal.
       8. The second appeal arising out of the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court was also dismissed on 8.5.97, by this Court.
       9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that it is the applicant who is obstructing delivery of possession and the decree for eviction against him inspite of being passed by the two Courts – below and confirmed also by this Court in a second appeal, it is not being executed for some or other reason.
       10. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 882 (Mis Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Mis. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and another) and referred to para 4 of the judgment to contend regarding mesne profit.
       11. In view of the facts and circumstances which have been brought on record and discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, in the opinion of this Court there is no illegality/infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court, which is well reasoned. There is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court under Sec. 115 of CPC.
       In view of what has been stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed.
       Since the matter is very old one, the trial Court is directed to decide the case as early as possible and execute the decree in accordance with the law.