JUDGEMENT

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ defendants challenging judgment and decree dtd.05.07.2007 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in civil appeal No.17- A/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dtd.13.02.2007 passed by Fourteenth Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in civil suit No.24-A/2003 whereby trial court decreed the suit for eviction on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a),(c)&(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and in appeal filed by the appellants/defendants, first appellate court has modified the judgment and decree and maintained the decree of eviction on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a)&(c) of the Act only.

2. Facts in short are that the plaintiffs/respondents had instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),(c)&(f) of the Act claiming themselves to be owner and landlord of the tenanted premises situated on ground floor of the house No.818 admeasuring 307 sq.ft. on the premise of purchase of house vide registered sale deed dtd.30.03.2001 (Ex.P-1) from Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, Vijay Kumar Bhargava and Dr. Ashok Kumar Bhargava with the allegations that the plaintiffs are in possession of first floor of the house whereas the defendants are in possession of the entire area of ground floor i.e. 307 sq.ft. in the capacity of tenants in which they are carrying out their business of hair cutting. It is alleged that in the tenanted shop father of defendants namely Durga Prasad Sen was tenant on rent of Rs.315/- per month and after his death the defendants became tenants in the shop. It is alleged that after sale of the house by Bhargavas to the plaintiffs, they became owner of it and defendants and Durga Prasad became their tenants. It is alleged that the disputed shop was given to the defendants’ father for non-residential purpose and after purchase of the house the plaintiffs orally informed to the defendants about their ownership and despite making several demands the defendants did not pay rent to the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs by issuing notice on 08.01.2003 demanded rent of the period from 31.03.2001 to 31.12.2002 but the defendants did not pay any rent and by sending false reply denied from ownership of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are in need of the suit accommodation for need of plaintiff 3 for starting business of readymade garments and for that purpose there is no other alternative accommodation available in the township. With the aforesaid allegations, the suit was filed.

3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that plaintiffs or their predecessor-in- title namely Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, Vijay Kumar Bhargava and Dr.

Ashok Kumar Bhargava are/were not owner of the house, hence they had no right to transfer the house, therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiffs is null, void and ineffective. It is alleged that the defendants’ father Durga Prasad Sen had entered into an agreement of sale on 17.04.1998 to purchase the suit property from Parmeshwari Devi Indra Kumar Bhargava Trust and thereafter another agreement was executed on 18.02.2000 for sale of the house in question, therefore, Durga Prasad Sen and defendants are in possession of the shop as owner and are not liable to pay rent to the plaintiffs. Further, denying bonafide requirement of plaintiff 3, as well as relationship of landlord and tenant, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial court framed as many as 10 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of plaint averments, the plaintiffs examined Dilip Kumar Chaddha (PW-1), Ashok Kumar Chaddha (PW-2) and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava (PW-3) (uncrossed) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/24). Simi