LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-103

TIKARAM Vs. KEHER SINGH

Decided On January 20, 2021
TIKARAM Appellant
V/S
Keher Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the defendant (now LRs) was admitted for hearing on 1-4-1992 by formulating the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The suit accommodation bearing House Nos.270/1 and 270/2 situated at Old Ward No.22, Baikunthpur, Raigarh, with connected land was earlier owned by defendant Tikaram. He by registered sale deed dated 14-6-1972 (Ex.P-1A) sold it in favour of the plaintiff and placed him in possession and thereafter on the same day executed a kirayanama Ex.P-2 taking the suit accommodation on rent. Plaintiff Kehar Singh on 11-4-1983 filed a suit for eviction against the defendant stating inter alia that though the defendant is his tenant vide Ex.P-2 on monthly rent of Rs. 60/- commencing from 1st of every month and ending on 30th/ 31st of each month with effect from 14-6-1972, but he has not paid rent from January, 1976 to April, 1983 i.e. 88 months amounting to Rs. 5,280/- despite service of notice which is ground for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh / Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') and the suit accommodation is required for bona fide need of the residence of his youngest son - the respondent herein and the accommodation which he is having is insufficient and he has no other residential accommodation in the township of Raigarh except the suit accommodation, therefore, the suit accommodation is bona fidely required under Section 12 (1)(e) of the Act of 1961. He also pleaded that the suit accommodation is required bona fidely by the plaintiff - landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto substantial additions or alterations and further pleaded that rebuilding or repairing cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act of 1961. One additional ground has also been taken that the defendant has denied his title by which he has suffered substantial damage which is the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit accommodation under Section 12(1)(a), (c) and (h) of the Act of 1961.

(3.) Resisting the suit and controverting the plaint allegations, the defendant filed written statement stating inter alia that the sale deed Ex.P-1A is not an outright sale, it was only a sale deed executed for security of loan and it was mortgaged for security of loan and it was agreed that after payment of loan amount, the suit accommodation will be re-transferred in favour of the defendant. However, the defendant admitted the fact of execution of kirayanama Ex.P-2 in favour of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was only that of a debtor and a creditor. It was also stated that the plaintiff was at that time, involved in the business of money-lending and used to get such kind of sale deeds executed in his favour for the purpose of security of loan, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree for eviction.