JHUNJHUNWALA TRADING COMPANY INDORE Vs. SHEKHAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 04/11/2004 passed by X ADJ, Indore in MA No. 2/2004 whereby application filed by the appellant under Section 17 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") was allowed in part, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that in the year 1979 respondent No. 4 filed a suit for eviction against the appellant under Section 12(1) (a), (b), (f) and (m) of the Act alleging that the appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation which requires by the respondent No. 4 bona fidely for carrying on business. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22/07/1985 against which appellant filed first appeal which was numbered as 77/1985. Respondent No. 4 also filed appeal as the decree was refused under Section 12(1) (b) and (m) of the Act. Vide judgment dated 19/01/1989 appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 was allowed and decree also passed under Section 12 (1) (b) and (m) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned appellate Court two appeals were filed which were allowed and decree passed by learned Courts below were set-aside against which SLP was filed by the respondent No. 4 before Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 26/07/1995 and Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the SLP filed by the respondent No. 4 and directed the appellant to vacant the suit accommodation on or before 31/12/1995. In compliance of the decree passed by Hon'ble Apex Court possession was handed-over by the appellant on 23/12/1995. Thereafter an application was filed by appellant on 22/06/1996 under Section 17 (2) of the Act alleging that after obtaining the decree on the ground of bona fide requirement respondent No. 4 has sold the property to respondents No. 1 to 3 vide registered sale-deed dated 24/04/1996. It was alleged that since decree was obtained on the ground of bona fide requirement, therefore, appellant be put into the possession of suit accommodation. The application was contested by the respondents on various grounds including on the ground that because of compelling circumstance the respondent No. 4 was left with no option except to sale the suit accommodation. After holding summary inquiry learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the appellant vide order dated 24/11/2003 directing the respondents to hand-over the possession against which appeal was filed under Section 31 of the Act on 04/11/2004 which was allowed and respondent No. 3 was directed to pay the rent of one year as compensation against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that since after obtaining the decree on the ground for genuine requirement the suit property was sold by respondent No. 4 and the accommodation was not used for the purpose for which it was got vacated, therefore, learned appellate Court committed error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned appellate Court has awarded compensation as one year rent which was being paid by the appellant. It is submitted that since appellant was tenant @ Rs. 250/- per month, therefore, inspite of allowing the application filed by the appellant the only compensation which has been awarded is of Rs. 3,000/- which is not at all adequate compensation. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal be allowed and judgment passed by learned appellate Court be set-aside and order passed by learned RCA be restored.

(3.) Mr. G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 submit that respondents No. 1 to 3 are the bona fide purchaser who has purchased the suit accommodation vide registered sale-deed dated 22/06/1996 after making the payment of full consideration. It is submitted that respondents No. 1 to 3 were having no knowledge that the suit accommodation got vacated by the respondent No. 4 on the ground of bona fide requirement. It is submitted that learned appellate Court has rightly held that it is respondents No. 1 to 3 who are liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.