RANJIT NARAYAN Vs. LAXMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT on 21-3-1973 filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent. Initially, ground taken was one under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ('act' for short) that is for non-payment of arrears of rent despite service of demand notice hut that ground was given up during the trial. A fresh ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act that is dis-claimer of title by tenant was added by way of amendment. However, such ground for eviction did not find favour either of the Courts below.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the respondent had executed a rent note (Ex. P-1) on 18-2-1966 in favour of the appellant. The respondent continued to pay rent to the appellant up till 31-1-1972. As per respondent Vijay Narayan Haksar, the brother of appellant had served a notice (Ex. D-2) claiming payment of rent from him on the ground that the suit shop had fallen in his share in partition with a copy of judgment of this Court in F. A. No. 9/1964 (Vijay Narayan Haksar v. Ranjit Narayan Haksar and Anr.) referring that the western shop had fallen in the share of Vijay Narayan Haksar where upon on 6-4-1973 the respondent had claimed to have paid arrears of rent between 1-2-1972 to 30-3-1973 to Vijay Narayan Haksar and obtained an acknowledgment of receipt vide Ex. D-3. The appellant had served a quit-cum-demand notice (Ex. P-2), dated 3-3-1972 which was received by the respondent on 5-3-1972 vide Ex. P-3 and was replied vide Ex. P-4 by the respondent claiming that to safe-guard his interest between the appellant and his rival brother/claimant, he would deposit the arrears of rent in Court. At the same time the respondent had replied on 13-11-1955 to Vijay Narayan Haksar that he is not his landlord nor any arrears are due as such arrears have already been paid to the appellant and that any attempt of interference by Vijay Narayan Haksar in the tenanted premises would be unauthorized. On these facts the learned Trial Court did not find the ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act proved. However, he did not find it also proved that the respondent had paid arrears of rent between 1-2-1972 to 31-3-1973 to Vijay Narayan Haksar as per Ex. D-3. The First Appellate Court held that the act of respondent was bona fide to safe-guard his own interest and payment of arrears of rent between 1-2-1972 to 31-3-1973 to be ineffective immaterial and not affective the interest of the appellant.

(3.) ON 13-4-1988 the present second appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law :-