PREM NARAYAN Vs. MUNNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiffs for eviction based on the ground of relationship of landlord and tenant, the appellants-plaintiffs have knocked the door of this Court by preferring Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed suit for eviction against defendant-respondent on . the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant on the grounds as envisaged under section 12(1) (a), (e), (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the plaintiffs, the defendant-respondent Munnalal is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and the rent is due w.e.f. 1.1.1992 which has not been paid by the defendant-respondent despite repeated demand. The accommodation-in-question is required bona fide by the landlord for residence as well as for running the business. The plaintiffs sent a notice by registered A/D post on 31.3.1992 which was received by defendant-respondent on 3.4.1992, but neither he vacated the suit accommodation nor paid any rent. The reply which has been sent, is based on incorrect facts. On the basis of these premised pleadings, a decree of eviction has been sought by the plaintiff-landlord against the defendant-respondent.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed several Issues. 1, 2, 3 and 9 pertain to the relationship between plaintiffs and defendant. The learned trial Judge, after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to hold that the defendant is not the tenant of plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit was dismissed. An appeal, which was preferred by appellants before the .appellate Court, was also dismissed and the finding was affirmed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this second appeal.