Bharosilal vs Kishorilal - 1991 Supreme(MP) 742

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.R. Goyal
For the Respondent: Prakash Chand Gupta

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – – S. 12 (1) (c) – – title of landlord denied in reply to quit notice and written statement as well – – eviction decree is legal.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – – S. 100 – – finding of disclaimer of title – – is finding of fact.
        Short Note
       1. This appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-
       (1) Whether disclaimer of title in written-statement can be made foundation for the cause of action by the plaintiff in seeking eviction of the defendant under section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?

       (2) Whether in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kundan Mal v. Gurudatta (1989 MPRCJ 111) and this Court in Balveer Singh v. Kishanlal (1988 JLJ 693) the plea taken in the reply-notice dated 10.7.82 can constitute disclaimer of title?
       (3) Whether in the absence of the plea in the plaint that the alleged disclaimer of title has been injurious to the interest of the landlord, ground available u/s 12(1) (c) could have been held to be made out?
       2. Held : Shri P.R. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the two Courts below are perverse as also against the provisions of law. Shri Goyal further submitted that the averments made by the appellant-defendant in his written-statement and the reply notice have been misconstrued as they do not go to show any disclaimer of title by the defendant appellant. The allegations, since do not constitute the disclaimer of title, a decree of eviction could not be passed. He contends that the defendant has sought information from the plaintiff about the source of his derivation of the title of the suit house. If a tenant bona fidely avers so, it cannot be taken to be the disclaimer and the approach adopted by the two Courts below is wholly misconceived. In para 1 of his written-statement, defendant admitted that he is paying the rent of the suit house to the respondent-plaintiff, but he denied his title and further in para 6 he stated that:-
       ^^¼6½ ;g fd] okn&i= dk in Øekad 6 Lohdkj gSA D;ksafd oknh dks ;g fofnr gqvk gS fd oknh ds LoRo o LokfeRo dk oknxzLr Hkou ugha gSA ;g oknh ds LoRo o LokfeRo esa fdl Ádkj vk;k bldh tkudkjh Áfroknh dks ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fookfnr Hkou Áfroknh ds iwoZtksa dk gh FkkA**
       3. Reply-notice of the appellant defendant is EX.P-3 sent by him through Shri Harkishore Sharma Advocate, wherein in the last but one paragraph, it was stated that the plaintiff is not the owner of the house and has no title and the whole amount of rent which has been recovered by the plaintiff so far, is liable to be refunded to him.
       4. However, the defendant-appellant denied to have made the above averments in the written-statement or in the reply-notice in his statement made by him in the Court as D.W. 1. On the contrary, he stated in Court that though he is tenant of the plaintiff- respondent, but he was insisting for the increase of rent to Rs. 150/- p.m. The defendant when confronted with the statement made in his written-statement in this regard, replied that the written-statement was got prepared by his son. But he admitted his signatures on the written-statement. He stated similarly about the averments made in the reply-notice Ex. P-8. The other witness of defendant-appellant, viz., Brijmohan (D.W.2) corroborated the version given by the appellant-defendant in Court.
       5. The two Courts below found that the defendant disclaimed title of the landlord and subsequently changed his version, but he made himself liable under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act on the strength of the everments made in the written-statement and the reply notice. As such, the suit came to be decreed.
       6. Shri P.L. Goyal was at pains in taking the Court through the entire evidence, but there is no substantial explanation to the averments which have been made in written-statement and reply notice Ex. P-8 through which the title of the respondent- plaintiff was denied by the tenant-defendant and the two Courts on the appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties and also considering the averments made in the documents, written- statement and reply notice Ex. P-8, have found the appellant- tenant liable to eviction for having denied the title of the respondent-plaintiff. No reason could be shown to take a different view from the findings, which are the findings of fact.
       7. As a sequel of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in this appeal. Therefore, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the appeal is dismissed: Looking to the nature of the controversy and considering the statement of the defendant made by him in the Court, parties shall bear their own costs as incurred. Counsel's fee. Rs. 200/-, if certified.
       8. But before parting with the order for saving the defendant- appellant from the peril of his sudden eviction from the suit premises, it is directed that the decree of eviction shall not be available to the plaintiff-respondent for a period of three months from today on the condition that the defendant gives an undertaking in the Executing Court on affidavit that he would peacefully vacate the suit house on or before 28th of February, 1992. 1989 MPRCJ 111 and 1988 JLJ 693 relied on. Appeal dismissed.