1993 Supreme(MP) 685

R.C. Lahoti, J.
Bharatlal v. Kishorilal
S.A. No. 98 of 1993 (G); Decided on 1.11.1993*.

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- So 12 (1) (c) -- title of landlord denied -- same set up in himself -- amounts to doing an act injurious to landlord.

       LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961¼e-iz-½ & Hkw& Lokeh ds gd dk izR;k[;ku & mldk Lo;a ds gksuk vfHkdfFkr & Hkw&Lokeh ds izfr {kfrdj dk;Z dh dksfV es vkrk gSA

        The two Courts below have found the tenancy proved. The defendant/appellant had certainly attorned in favour of the plaintiff as evidenced by the rent receipts, Ex. P/3 and P/4 wherein the defendant is shown as the tenant and the plaintiff as the landlord. The receipt is signed by the tenant as well. Payment by money order was also made by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent.

        Held: Vide para 10 of his statement, defendant Bharatlal has admitted that all other tenants in the suit property were paying rent to the plaintiff/respondent. Vide para 2, the defendant/appellant has admitted rent having been paid by him in respect of the suit accommodation, though he hastened to state that the rent was being paid by way of interest. It appears that the defendant was dogmatically sticking to his version that the house was simply mortgaged with the father and uncle of the plaintiff. However, the documents brought on record go to show that the of and brother of the defendant had mortgaged the suit property with the precedecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in the year 1935 and they sold the same to him in the year 1937. The present suit has been filed in the year 1982, till this day no steps have been taken by the plaintiff/respondent for redeeming the property from mortgage, if he claims it to be so, nor for declaration of his title, if it still survives.

        In the reply notice preceding the institution of the suit as also in the written statement there is a clear denial of the plaintiffs title and that too without any obvious justification. Such a denial of landlords title and setting up the same in one self does amount to doing an act injurious to the interest of the landlord providing a cause of action for eviction with the meaning of section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. [See, Majati Subharao v. P. V.K. Krishna Rao (AIR 1989 SC 2187)].

        For the foregoing reasons no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. The appeal does not raise any question of law muchless a substantial one. The appeal is held liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. AIR 1989 SC 218 followed.