SABIR MOHD Vs. MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/defendant has directed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.2.99 passed by the District Judge, Sagar in regular civil appeal No. 24-A/97 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.3.98 passed by III Civil Judge Class-I Sagar in original civil suit No. 98-A/97, dismissing the suit of the Respondent filed against him for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(a),(c)and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (In short 'the Act'),by allowing the appeal of the Respondents, such suit has been decreed on all the aforesaid grounds.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that initially one Babulal Shrivastava, the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent filed the impugned suit against one Noor Mohammad, the father of the Appellant for eviction with respect of the disputed premises situated in H. No. 329, Krishnaganj ward, Sagar contending that said Noor Mohammad, being monthly tenant of the principal Plaintiff Babulal, was in occupation of the disputed premises for residential purpose at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. Subsequent to death of Noor Mohammad, his son, the Appellant, has become the tenant of said Babulal on the same terms. As per initial pleading, Noor Mohammad being defaulter in payment of the rent, even on making the demand, had not paid the same for the period between 1.11.75 to 30.4.78 near about 30 months, on which, after giving the demand notice dated 13.5.78 the tenancy of said Noor Mohammad was also terminated on expiry of the tenancy month on dated 31.5.78. Inspite service of such notice, neither the arrears of rent was paid nor the premises was vacated, on which, initially the suit was filed on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. It is also pleaded that said notice was also given to the present Appellant as he was also residing in such premises with the Noor Mohammad since 1974.

(3.) In the initial written statement filed with the signature of the Noor Mohammad, the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties along with the other averments of the pleading are denied. In special pleading it is stated that before 4-5 years from the date of filing the written statement, the Defendant was in possession of three rooms of some house of the Appellant as tenant, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. In such house he was inducted before 15 years. Before 4-5 years as stated above, said Babulal asked him to vacate the premises as he was selling the same, on which, immediately it was vacated by the Defendant and started to reside in some other house. It is also stated that the Defendant is neither in possession of the disputed premises nor the tenant of the Appellant, in fact, some Mohd. Sabir, the driver, is residing in the disputed premises. The suit has been filed with the false averments and the prayer for dismissal of the same was made with cost of Rs. 200/-.