KAMLESH JAIN Vs. SANGEETA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was defendant before the trial court and he had filed the suit for vacant possession of suit property, mesne profit for the month July 2009 till realization.

(2.) As per the plaintiffs case Smt. Kasturi Bai and Smt. Sundar Bai had purchased a house at Subhash Chowk in the year 1948 from one Shri Subrati. Smt. Sundar Bai had sold her half share of the suit property to Parchamal on 1.11. 2008. After death of Smt. Kasturi Bai, the plaintiffs who were her successors got the suit property that is house in question. At that time, there were two tenants in the house. Plaintiffs give notice to tenant who was living in the lower part of the house. He gave possession of the house to the plaintiffs. In the part of the house of Sundar Bai, Kamlesh Jain the present appellant was tenant. At the time of registry by Sundar Bai that is on 1.11. 2008 Kamlesh Jain after receiving an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- vacated the house and illegally entered in the part of the house belonging to Kasturi Bai. Plaintiffs received information on 14.7.2009 and they filed a report at Police Station Balaghat but no action has been taken therefore, they have to file the present suit for eviction, mesne profit and possession.

(3.) Plaintiffs had filed a suit before the Controlling Authority Balaghat under Section 25 and 26 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for payment of rent. Rent Controlling Authority has dismissed the suit on the ground that non-applicants were not tenant of the applicant that is the plaintiffs and defendants were held to be as trespasser. Respondents had filed their written statements before the trial Court and they had admitted that house in question belongs to plaintiff who is owner of suit property. The defendants were tenant in the said house and rent is taken by Arun Kumar son of Sundar Bai. Application was dismissed by Rent Controlling Authority on the ground of non-appearance and not on merits. Suit is filed maliciously to harass the defendants.