SARDAR RAM SINGH Vs. DEVENDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Judge Class-I vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.8-A/1989 decreed the suit for eviction against the appellant and directed him to provide the vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the respondents. In Civil Appeal No.13-A/2009 preferred by the appellant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2011 by the learned 1 st Additional District Judge, Multai District Betul. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff Prathvinath has moved a suit against the appellant before the trial Court with the pleadings that the suit accommodation was given to the appellant on rent. The appellant was not regular in payment of the rent and therefore, a demand notice was given to him but in spite of that notice, neither the rent was deposited nor tendered to the plaintiff therefore, it was prayed that the decree of eviction be passed. Thereafter, the plaintiff Prethvinath expired and the respondents were brought as legal representatives of the deceased Prathvinath. Since the appellant in written statement denied the title of the deceased Prathvinath and the respondents therefore, the pleading of disclaimer of title was also taken by the plaintiffs to get the eviction.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge Class-I after framing the issues, recorded the evidence given by the plaintiff and an opportunity of cross-examination was given to the witnesses of the plaintiff. However, the defence of the appellant was struck off due to non- depositing of the rent and therefore, no defence evidence was accepted. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge Class-I decreed the suit on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Act'). In appeal, the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed.