RAMJILAL Vs. NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 21/09/98 passed by the Trial Court by which the counter claim of the defendant/respondent has been decreed against the plaintiff/ appellant and eviction ordered along with payment of rent / mean profits.

(2.) The original plaintiff-Ramji filed a suit against Narayan Singh, the respondent, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.06.70 (Ex.P/3) was a nominal sale and the transaction was essentially a loan transaction. It was pleaded inter alia by plaintiff Ramji that he had obtained loan from defendant Narayan Singh and only as security towards repayment of loan, nominal sale deed was executed. The defendant, while resisting the claim of the plaintiff raised a counter claim asserting title in his favour by virtue of sale deed dated 10.06.70 on the pleadings inter alia that the sale was an out right one by which, he acquired title and later on, plaintiff- Ramji continued in occupation of the premises upon execution of a rent note on 20/11/70 (Ex.P/ 11). However, thereafter, he acted prejudicially to the interest of the defendant in raising objection to mutation of the name of the defendant in the revenue records disputing title of the defendant as land lord and as title holder, claiming himself as the owner of the property and the defendant as tenant. It was also the case of the defendant that the plaintiff occupied some portion of the tenanted premises which were vacated by the other tenants declaring himself as owner whereas he was divested of the title vide sale deed dated 10/06/70 and thereafter became tenant under the rent note dated 20.11.70.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was decreed, against which, an appeal was preferred. First appeal was allowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 19/08/1980 in FA No. 129/1976. It was held that vide sale deed dated 10/06/70, the plaintiff had sold the premises to defendant and it was a case of an out right sale and not a loan transaction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, plaintiff- Ramji filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27/02/92 in SLP No.6136/83. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the High Court. As the High Court, while holding against the plaintiff -Ramji had remanded the case for adjudication of the counter claim of the defendant, the Trial Court, upon remand, decided the claim raised by the defendant in his counter claim. It was held that the land lord / defendant was entitled to decree of eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title as provided under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). Thereafter, First Appeal was preferred by Ramji though unsuccessfully. Second Appeal was then filed in the High Court, which was allowed vide judgment decree dated 21.08.1997 passed in S.A.No.98/97. The case was again remanded for trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Trial Court then held the trial and decreed the suit holding that the defendant / land lord is entitled to decree of eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title by the tenant- Ramji as provided under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act of 1961. It is this judgment and decree which has been assailed in this appeal.