NAWAB SAHEB Vs. FIROZ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 7-11-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khandwa Camp at Burhanpur in Civil Appeal No. 8/94 whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1994 passed by the learned IInd Civil Judge, Class-II, Burhanpur in Civil Suit No. 107-A/94 wherein the learned Trial Judge had dismissed the suit for eviction and recovery of rent.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit under Section 23 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the grounds of bona fide requirement and non-payment of rent. There was also the prayer for recovery of rent and grant of damages. The plaintiff's case before the learned Trial Court was that he had purchased the suit property from the original title holder, Shyamlal by registered sale-deed dated 8-6-1983 and the defendant was a tenant under said Shyamlal at the time of purchase of the property. Plaintiff after purchase of the suit property intimated the defendant about the acquisition of the title and thereafter served a notice determining the tenancy. He had also raised a demand for the unpaid rent which the defendant was liable to pay under the law. A further stand was taken by the plaintiff that the premises in question was required by him as he wanted to start a business in the premises. Various grounds were urged in the plain to justify the bona fide need of the plaintiff. The amount of claim which was putforth for realisation was Rs. 1237/ -. The plaintiff also prayed for damages at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month till the delivery of possession.

(3.) THE defendant filed his written statement controverting the stand of the plaintiff and disputed the ownership. According to the defendant the suit property belonged to Burhanpur Municipality and Shyamlal was only a 'pattadar' under the Municipality and his possession was founded on limited right and he had no authority to transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also controverted about the notice whereby the plaintiff had intimated him about his right, title and interest over the disputed premises. A reference was made to the condition of the lease to highlight that Shyamlal was not entitled under the law to create any kind of right by way of transfer in favour of any third party. The defendant also refuted to be a tenant in respect of the premises in question. It was the stand of the defendant that he had never paid the rent to the plaintiff. It was his case that he got the possession of the premises in question from one Mayuddin and the ownership still rests with the Municipality in question. The bona fide need of the plaintiff was categorically controverted by the defendant.