1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed

against the Judgment and Decree dated 26-2-2000 passed by 8^th

Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in C.A. No. 172A/1999, arising out

of Judgment and Decree dated 18-7-1999 passed by 6^th Civil Judge

Class 1 Jabalpur in C.S. No. 110/1998.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that

the respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the plaintiff is

the owner of House No. 429 and 430 situated in Kotwali Ward,

3

Jabalpur which he had got in family partition on 21-12-1984. The

Appellant is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The Appellant is

irregular in payment of rent. The son of the plaintiff Dr. Rakesh

Pahadiya got married on 30-1-1990 and doesnot have any alternative

and suitable accommodation in city of Jabalpur. Accordingly, the suit

for eviction was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for

residential purposes.

3. The Appellant filed his written statement and denied the ownership

of the plaintiff. He claimed that father of the defendant/appellant,

namely Ambika Prasad Khandelwal was the tenant of father of the

plaintiff namely Mohanlal. After the death of Ambika Prasad

Khandelwal, his sons namely Vishnu Gopal, Madan Gopal, Govind

Das and the defendant became the tenant. Similarly after the death of

owner namely Shri Mohanlal all his children i.e., five sons and

daughters became the owner. The defendant is a tenant of 2 rooms,

one hall and 2 roofs and monthly rent is Rs. 38/-. There are total 6

members in the family of the plaintiff and at present are residing in

three storey building. The ground floors have been let out to Ankit

Traders and Sapna Garments who are carrying on business. All the

necessary parties have not been impleaded and accordingly, it was

prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The Trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence

decreed the suit and it was held that the plaintiff is in bonafide

requirement for residential purpose and has no alternative and suitable

accommodation in the city of Jabalpur.

4

5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial

Court, the Appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the

impugned Judgment and Decree.

6. The appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Question

of Law :

“Whether the contract of tenancy being a single and

individual contract, a decree for eviction of only portion of

the tenancy, fell in the share of the plaintiff during the

partition or family arrangements, can legally be passed?”

7. The Counsel for the Appellant could not point out any thing from

the record to show that the suit was filed only in respect of a part of

tenanted premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the exclusive

owner of the suit property, i.e., House No. 429 and 430 situated in

Kotwali Ward, Jabalpur which he had got in the family partition. In

fact the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the

tenanted premises and the appellant/defendant had claimed that he is in

possession of 2 rooms, one hall and two roofs as a tenant. It was the

case of the defendant that the house in question went to all the legal

heirs of Mohanlal, but the plaintiff has produced the partition deed, Ex.

P1C. According to this partition deed Ex. P.1C, one part of house no.

429,430 situated in Kotwali Ward was given to the plaintiff. Thus, it is

clear that the plaintiff had got a part of the house no. 429,430 and the

defendant is the tenant in the part of the house which went to the share

of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the defendant that half portion of

the tenanted premises went to the share of plaintiff and remaining part

of the tenanted premises went to the share of some other brother. Even

5

as per the evidence, the case of defendant Krishna Gopal (D.W.1) is

that after the death of Mohanlal, all the legal heirs of Mohanlal became

owner of the house in question. It is not his case that his tenanted

po