GULAM HUSSAIN Vs. NIJANUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.3.2009 passed by II Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/08, whereby the judgment dated 6.10.2008 passed by II Civil Judge, Class II, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 124-A/07, whereby suit filed by respondents was decreed under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, was maintained, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the deceased Nijamuddin whose legal representatives are respondents filed a suit on 28.9.2005 for eviction against Gulam Hussain predecessor in title of appellants alleging that respondent is owner of a house situated at Charnarwada, Redas Road, Dhar bearing Municipal House No. 7. It was alleged that the suit house was being owned by one Kaluram from whom it was purchased by the respondent vide registered sale-deed 18.6.1986 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/-. It was alleged that after purchasing property name of respondent has been recorded in the Municipality as owner and also respondent is paying the house-tax. It was alleged that respondent is driver by profession and was in employment of private bus, which is being operated between Alirajpur to Jhabua. It was alleged that due to job respondent started to live at Alirajpur. It was alleged that the suit house is two story building. It was alleged that respondent inducted the appellant in the first floor of the suit house as tenant @ Rs. 100/- per month, while the ground floor of the house remained in occupation of the respondent. It was alleged that appellant paid the rent to the respondent from 1995 to 1998, but thereafter no rent was paid by the appellant to the respondent. It was alleged that in the year 2000 taking advantage of absence of respondent appellant took the possession of the ground floor of the suit house by breaking the locks, of which complaint was made by the respondent. It was alleged that notice was issued by the respondent on 11.7.2005, of which false reply was given by the appellant on 15.7.2005 wherein it was alleged that the appellant is tenant of Kaluram @ Rs. 10/- per month, therefore, appellant is not liable to vacate the suit accommodation. In the suit it was alleged that the respondent requires the suit accommodation for his own need of residence for which respondent is having no other suitable accommodation of his own. It was also alleged that appellant is in arrears of rent which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand. It was also alleged that appellant has encroached over the property, which was not letted out to the respondent. It was prayed that the suit filed by respondents be allowed and decree of eviction be passed against the appellants.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statements wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that the suit property has been purchased by the respondent. It was alleged that appellant has purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/- from Kaluram and also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards sale consideration, but because of death of Kaluram sale-deed could not have been executed. It was alleged that appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation since last 40 years @ Rs. 10/- per month. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court, against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed, hence this appeal.