ASEEM KUMAR Vs. MADHUSUDAN AGARWAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Defendant has directed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010 passed by Ist Additional District Judge Harda, in regular civil appeal No. 1-A/2010 whereby, upholding the judgment and decree dated 19.7.06 passed by II Civil Judge Class-II Harda in original civil suit No. 417-A/2004, decreeing the suit of the Respondents against him for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, his appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) It is undisputed legal position that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not made applicable to town Timarni, District Harda where the disputed premises is situated.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that one Madhusudan Agarwal, the father of Respondent No. 1 to 4, being deaf and dumb person, aged about 80 years, filed the impugned suit for eviction against the Appellant through his son and general power of attorney holder, Lavkush Agarwal, contending that he being deaf and dumb person, is fully competent to transmit his thoughts to other persons through gestures and in such a manner he had given the instruction to his aforesaid power of attorney holder, to file the impugned suit. It is further contended that he acquired the house premises measuring 2310 sq.ft. situated at Shankar Mandir road, Timarni in his share on 30.3.1993 in a family arrangement carried out between amongst the co-parcenors of their joint Hindu family and thereby he became the sole owner of the same. The description and the boundaries of such house is mentioned in the plaint. As per further averments, out of the aforesaid house the half of the portion towards the eastern side, was given to the Appellant for one year on annual tenancy at the rate of Rs. 9601/-per annum. The Appellant, being defaulter in payment of the regular rent, has not paid the rent for the period between 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 ie Rs. 9601/-, on which, the deceased Plaintiff, through his counsel, had given the quit notice dated 16.5.2003 to the Appellant whereby demanding the dues, his tenancy in the disputed premises was also terminated on expiry of the tenancy month on 31.3.2004. The same was duly served on him but instead to vacate the premises and pay the arrears of rent, the same was replied with false averments challenging the title of the Respondent with respect of the disputed house. With these averments, the impugned suit for eviction as well as for recovery of the arrears of rent and mesne profit was filed.