IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 10^th OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No.461 of 2004 KAMAL KISHORE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SUSHILA SHARMA AND ANOTHER Versus MANAKCHAND RUTHIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT. POONAM RUTHIA AND OTHERS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Appearance:

Shri Vikram Johri, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Senior Advocate with Shri Mohd. Sazid Khan, Advocate for respondents.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

JUDGMENT This second appeal is preferred by the original appellant/defendant-

Kamal Kishore (now dead, through LRs) challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 31.03.2004 passed by 2^nd Additional District Judge, Sehore in Civil Appeal No.43A/2003 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 21.08.2003 passed by 1^st Civil Judge Class-I, Sehore in Civil Suit No.62A/2001 whereby Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for eviction filed by original plaintiff-Manakchand Ruthia (now dead, through LRs) on the ground of defaults in making payment of rent available under Section 12(1)(a) and denial of title available under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. In short the facts are that the original plaintiff-Manak Chand Ruthia instituted the suit on 16.04.2001 against original defendant-Kamal Kishore for eviction of the suit house with the allegations that the plaintiff is owner of the suit house and the defendant is his tenant on monthly rent of Rs.22.25 paise and despite service of notice (Ex.P/2), he has not paid rent for last 36 month amounting to Rs.801/- and has also denied title of the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed for eviction on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a) & (c) of the Act.

3. The defendant appeared and by filing written statement denied the plaint averments and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is not owner of the house and the defendant is not his tenant. It is contended that the defendant or his ancestors were in possession of the suit house as owners for more than last 50 years in the knowledge of the plaintiff and so recorded in the municipal record. It is also contended that the house has already been sold in two parts to Smt. Sushila Sharma and Smt. Anju Paliwal on 03.05.2000 and 21.08.2000 respectively and possession of the respective portions has also been delivered to them and despite knowledge of the aforesaid sale, the transferee purchasers have not been made parties to the suit, therefore, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that Smt. Achrajbai being owner was residing in the suit house, who adopted the defendant vide registered adoption deed dtd. 06.10.1960 and since then he was residing therein as owner. It is contended that all this was informed to the plaintiff by sending reply to the notice on 04.01.2001 and at present the defendant is not in possession of the house, therefore, the suit is not maintainable against him. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Ashok Kataria (PW/1), Manakchand Ruthia (PW/2), Ram Prasad Mewada (PW/3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/23). The defendant also examined himself-Kamal Kishore (DW/1) and submitted documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/4). After hearing the parties, trial Court mainly on the basis of the judgment and decree dtd. 27.02.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/2001 (Ex.P/5 and P/6), held the plaintiff to be owner and landlord and the defendant to be tenant in the suit house and as the defendant did not pay rent and has also denied title of the plaintiff claiming himself to be owner as well as to Sushila Sharma and Anju Paliwal on the basis of sale deeds, decreed the suit vide judgment