SUNIL KUMAR Vs. DILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.3-A/2008 by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Shahdol, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1999 passed in Civil Suit No.17-A/1987 by the Civil Judge Class-II, Budhar, has been reversed and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff landlord filed a suit against the respondent/ original defendant seeking a decree of eviction, on the ground of Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). It was contended that admittedly the respondent/defendant was the tenant of the original appellant/ plaintiff. The respondent/defendant has though taken the house for the purpose of residence, but after putting a lock on the same, he has shifted to Pendra, District Bilaspur (CG) and was not using it right from the year 1972. When a notice demanding vacation of the house after termination of the tenancy was issued, a reply was sent stating that the appellant/plaintiff was not the landlord, in fact, an agreement was got executed between a coparcener of the joint Hindu family by the respondent/defendant on 26.8.1981 for the purpose of sale of the said house, therefore, original plaintiffs were not entitled to grant of a decree of eviction.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant on the pleas that there was a family dispute in between the original plaintiff and other coparceners of the joint Hindu family and since the demise premises fell in share of one of the coparcener, in fact, the respondent-tenant got an agreement executed for the sale of the demise premises to him. This fact was well within the knowledge of the original plaintiff and he was required to file a claim for partition of the joint Hindu Family property which was not done. Ultimately, there was a family dispute which had gone upto the Apex Court and, therefore, such a claim that the original plaintiff was the landlord of the respondent-tenant was not correct. It was, thus, contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed.