NIRANJANKUMAR AWASTHI Vs. AJAY VIJAYWARGIYA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009 by the Court of X Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.54-A/2007, directing thereby eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Relevant facts in short are that plaintiff/respondents purchased the suit accommodation from one Kamal Kishore Shrivastava son of Chandravilas Shrivastava, vide registered sale deed dated 31.08.2006. Kamal Kishore Shrivastava has executed a power of attorney on 01.12.1995 in favour of one Om Prakash Vijaywargiya, son of Harikishan Vijaywargiya. Defendant obtained the suit accommodation on rent on 01.06.2004 @ 3,500/- per month as rent from Om Prakash Vijaywargiya, through a broker Bhavesh Patel. Defendant did not make payment of rent after June, 2004. Since the defendant was occupying the suit accommodation as tenant of Kamal Kishore Shrivastava, he became the tenant of plaintiffs on account of purchase of suit accommodation vide registered sale dated 31.08.2006. Plaintiffs vide notice dated 23.04.2007 demanded the rent, which was not paid despite service of demand notice. Plaintiffs required the suit premises for their own residence because they have no other vacant accommodation of their own in the city of Indore, hence, the suit.

(3.) Defendant/appellant vide his written statement denied the relationship of tenant with the plaintiffs. It has been stated in the written statement that he obtained the suit accommodation from Om Prakash Vijaywargiya, through a broker Bhavesh Patel. Thus, the defendant who is the tenant of Om Prakash Vijaywargiya had no privity of contract with Kamal Kishore Shrivastava. The sale deed executed in respect of the suit accommodation was not by Om Prakash Vijaywargiya, but by Kamal Kishore who had no right/title to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The averments contained in the plaint were also denied. Thus, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Learned trial Judge after recording the evidence granted a decree in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, present appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant.