PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ROCHIRAM NAGDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The enviable position to which the tenant of a shop building has ensconced himself as corollary to the judgment of the High court (under appeal now) is that he need not thenceforth be accountable to any landlord. On the one side when the claim of appellant to be the landlord has been discountenanced by the High court, at the other side the person whom the tenant proclaimed as his landlord has disclaimed the credential. If the judgment of the High court remains in force the tenant stands elevated virtually to the status of owner of the suit building. But appellant is not prepared to concede defeat and hence he has come up with this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Facts which led to the aforesaid position can be summarised thus: Respondent was the tenant of the suit building (consisting of a shop room and godown premises) which belonged to one Narain Prasad. As per a sale deed executed on 23/1/1989 (Ext. P. 11 Narain Prasad transferred his rights in the suit building to theappellant. On its footing appellant filed Civil Suit No. 75-A of 1990 for eviction of the respondent under Section 12 (1 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") on the ground that respondent has not paid rent to the appellant. That suit was contested by the respondent raising the contention that the building was actually purchased by Pyarelal (father of the appellant) as per Ext. P11-sale deed and appellant is only a namelender therein, and hence appellant is not entitled to get the eviction order or the rent of the building. In that suit the court found that appellant is the real owner of the building pursuant to Ext. P. 11- sale-deed and that he was entitled to receive rent of the building. However, the suit was dismissed as the respondent deposited the arrears of rent in court during pendency of that suit but appellant was permitted to withdraw the arrears of rent so deposited by the respondent as per the judgment rendered in that suit.