MOTILAL (DEAD) Vs. LAKHANLAL (DEAD).

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 12-5-2000 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, MP (Now CG) in Civil Suit No. 10-A/99 wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the original respondent/plaintiff (present respondents No. A to F are legal representatives of deceased Lakahnlal) against the original appellant Motilal (present appellants are legal representatives of deceased Motilal) for eviction, injunction, compensation and vacant possession of the land bearing Survey No. 640 area 0.94 decimal situated at Juna Bilaspur, Kewat No. 202, Patwari Halka No. 110, Tahsil and District Bilaspur.

(2.) Admittedly, original respondent/plaintiff Lakhanlal and original appellant/defendant Motilal were real brothers and property in question is owned by Lakhanlal. As per version of original appellant/plaintiff, suit land was leased out on monthly rent of Rs.100/- with permission to raise the structure in it in connection with his business for a period of 20 years expiring on 14-3-1985 to the original appellant by the original respondent. Before the expiry of the said lease another agreement was alleged to have been executed on 23-12-1971 whereby the appellant is said to have agreed to remove the house which he had constructed on the expiry of the lease period and the entire material of the house will have to be removed. After expiry of lease period, the original respondent served a notice on original appellant on 21-6-1993 requiring him to place the respondent in possession of the suit premises after removal of the structure which was suitably replied by the original appellant. The original respondent, therefore, filed the instant suit under Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act, 1961") for eviction of the original appellant on the ground of bona fide need on expiry of the lease deed by efflux of time. It was contended by the original appellant before the trial Court that lease deed was in perpetuity and that being so the original respondent was not entitled to claim eviction and suit premises were not required for bona fide need of the original respondent. Execution of agreement dated 23-12-1971 is also denied as fabricated. After hearing the parties, the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the original respondent on the ground that the lease was not in perpetuity and it expired on 14-3-1985.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit as under: