MAKSOOD AHMAD Vs. SMT. SHARIFUNNISHA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant -defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2013, passed by 15th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 4-A/11, whereby allowing the appeal of the respondents - plaintiffs by setting aside judgment dated 25.7.2011, passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class -I, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 101-A/09, dismissing the suit of the respondents filed for eviction on the grounds of Sections 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961, in short "The Act", such suit of the respondents has been decreed on aforesaid both the grounds against the appellant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the predecessor in title of respondents - plaintiffs namely Smt. Sharifunnisha had filed the impugned suit against the appellant for eviction, arrears of rent, mesne profit with some other reliefs in respect of the tenanted premises bearing house no. 32- P.P. Colony, Gwarighat Road, Jabalpur contending that on dated 25.1.1988, the husband of the principal plaintiff, namely Mohd. Yakub had taken such house under the hire purchase agreement from the M.P. Housing Board, during subsisting such hire purchase agreement, he passed away, on which after depositing the entire consideration in accordance with such higher purchase agreement, a registered sale deed of the premises was executed by the Housing Board in favour of principle plaintiff and the respondents, on dated 27.5.2006. Such house is comprising with one hall, open courtyard, kitchen, lat bath alongwith some open land. In the life time of Mohd. Yakub, Smt. Jainab bi, mother of the appellant was his monthly tenant @ Rs.300/- per month for residential purpose. She passed away on dated 8.12.2008 and since then the appellant being tenant of the respondents on the same terms is in occupation of such house. Subsequent to death of Jainab bi, the appellant became defaulter in payment of the monthly rent and inspite making the demand by the respondents, the same was not paid. Apart from this, the principal plaintiff, (since deceased) was also in bonafide genuine need of such premises for the residence of her sons (respondents) and their family for which she did not possess any other accommodation of her own in such town. Besides this, the premises was not being used for the purpose for which it was taken by the appellant's family and the same has been kept in locked condition for more than seven months, on which the principle plaintiff through her counsel sent the quit notice dated 7.3.2009, the principle defendant by making the demand of outstanding rent, intimated to vacate the premises, but the same was not served because the house was found to be locked. With these pleadings, the impugned suit was filed.

(3.) After service of the summons of the suit, the appellant himself appeared before the trial court on 19.5.2010 and took adjournment to engage the counsel and to file WS but on subsequent dated 6.7.2010, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and WS was also not filed, on which the case was proceeded exparte against him and posted for recording exparte evidence. Before recording such evidence, an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside exparte order was filed on behalf of appellant on 7.12.2010, the same was replied and opposed by the respondents. On consideration, vide order dated 25.1.2011, such application was allowed and after setting aside the exparte order, the appellant was extended further opportunity to file the WS. Subsequent to it, even on extending the various dates, the WS was not filed. Then on 12.5.2011 again the suit was proceeded exparte against the appellant and after recording the exparte evidence of the respondents on appreciation, the trial court by holding that the respondents could not prove the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties dismissed the suit. Such dismissal was challenged by the respondents before the appellate court, after extending opportunity of hearing to the parties, on consideration the appellate court in the lack of any pleadings and evidence in rebuttal on behalf of appellant, taking into consideration the unrebutted pleadings and evidence of the respondents allowed the appeal and by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court by holding the relationship as landlord and tenant, decreed the suit on the grounds of arrears of rent and the bonafide genuine requirements of the premises to the respondents for their residence under Section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (e) of the Act. Being dissatisfied with this judgment of the Appellate Court, the appellant has come to this court with this appeal.