PREMKUMAR Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 14/08/12 passed by XVII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.5-A/11 whereby issue Nos. 3, 4 & 7 were decided against the petitioner, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for eviction on 18/06/07 against the respondent under Section 12(1)(b) (c)&(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act"). In the suit it was alleged that the petitioner has become absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 01/12/06. Apart from other facts stated in the plaint it was alleged that the petitioner requires the suit accommodation bonafidely as the petitioner is having no other alternative suitable accommodation of his own. The suit was contested by the respondent on various grounds including on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act as period of one year has not expired after acquiring of suit accommodation by the respondent before filing of the suit. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned Court below framed the issues. Issue Nos. 3, 4 & 7 were tried as preliminary issue as no evidence was required. After hearing the parties learned Court below found that since the petitioner became absolute owner of the suit accommodation on 01/12/06 and the suit was filed on 16/06/07 and period of one year was not expired after becoming owner of the suit accommodation, therefore, suit filed by the petitioner for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act is barred under Section 12(4) of the Act, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Court below was not justified in deciding the preliminary issues against the petitioner. It is submitted that since it is relinqushment deed which was executed in favour of petitioner on 01/12/06, therefore, it cannot be said that prior to it petitioner was owner of the suit accommodation. It is submitted that the petition be allowed and impugned order whereby issue nos. 3, 4 & 7 were decided against the petitioner, be quashed.