SARDAR HARBANS SINGH Vs. SHAILESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Mancndragarh in Civil Suit No. 13-A/88, whereby the appellant defendant has been ordered to be evicted from the suit shop under Sections 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' ). The decree under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act has not been granted by the Trial Court on the ground that the rent has been deposited by the appellant-defendant in the Trial Court in accordance with law.

(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 13-A/88 against the appellant-defendant on the ground that the appellant was initially a tenant of Manoharlal Gupta who had let out the suit shop to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The tenancy was monthly and started from the first of every month and was liable to be terminated on the last day of the month. Thereafter, it was claimed that on 5-10-1984, Manoharlal Gupta transferred the suit shop to the respondent by a registered partition-deed. Accordingly, the respondent Shailesh Chand Gupla son of Manoharlal Gupta claimed to have became the landlord of the appellant Sardar Harbans Singh. On 22-2-1985, the respondent served a notice on the appellant by registered post to the effect that he had become the landlord by virtue of the registered partition-deed. Thereafter, on 9-4-1988, the respondent served a registered notice to the appellant claiming that he was entitled to receive rent from the appellant between the period 5-10-1984 to 31-3-1988 and it was also claimed that the suit shop is liable to be vacated by 1-6-1988. The appellant gave a reply dated 16-5-1988 to the respondent but did not accept the respondent to be the landlord. Nor did he pay him the arrears of rent between the period from 5-10-1984 to 31-3-1988. The respondent, therefore, filed the suit claiming to be the landlord on the foundation of the registered partition-deed dated 5-10-1984 between him and his father and claimed that since the appellant had denied and has not accepted the respondent to be the landlord, he was liable to be evicted under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. The second ground for eviction was under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act for nonpayment of arrears of rent within two months of receipt of demand notice dated 9-4-1988. The third ground for eviction was under Section 12 (1 ). (f) of the Act claiming that the respondent required the suit shop bong fide for his show-room for sale of Almirahs of Steel, Cooler and furniture etc. which he was manufacturing at Manendragarh. It was stated that at the time of filjng of the plaint the respondent was using another shop belonging to his father which he was liable to vacate in due course. The respondent further stated in his plaint that he has no alternative accommodation of his own except, the suit shop and, therefore, the appellant was liable to be evicted under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. A further claim was made for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,600/- and a claim of Rs. 14,215/- by way of damages was also made.

(3.) THE appellant controverted the allegations made in the plaint and stated that there was no real partition between the respondent and his father Manoharlal Gupta and the partition-deed dated 5-10-1984 was a sham docu- ment and was totally illegal. It was asserted that despite the execution of the registered partition-deed dated 5-10-1984, the respondent was not conferred with the title on the ownership of the suit property and, therefore, he did not step into the shoes of his father and became the landlord of the appellant. He claimed that Manoharlal Gupta is still his landlord. It was claimed that the appellant was ready to pay MI the rent to Manoharlal Gupta and did not acknowledge the respondent to be his sole landlord. It was further claimed that there was no bona fide requirement of the suit property.