BABLU Vs. RAJINDER SINGH RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 4/2/2021 passed by 29th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.7/2019 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2018 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.47-A/2015, whereby trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety and upon filing civil appeal by the plaintiff, first appellate Court has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence available under Sec. 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

(2.) In short, the facts are that the original plaintiff -Rajinder Singh (now dead, through LRs), instituted a suit for eviction with the allegations that the plaintiff has purchased the suit house admeasuring 915 sq.ft., over which Kachcha house is constructed on an area 368 sq.ft., from defendant - Bablu @ Shivraj Singh's brother Indrajeet Kushwaha vide registered sale deed dtd. 31/12/2012 (Ex.P/1) and received possession. It is also alleged that after purchase of the house, the same was given on rent to the defendant on 1/3/2013 on the recommendation of his brother Indrajeet. Although the defendant paid rent for a period of three months, but thereafter did not pay any rent despite service of demand notice dtd. 3/2/2015. It is also alleged that the house is in dilapidated condition and is not suitable for residence of human being, but the defendant is residing in the house at the risk of his life. It is also alleged that the defendant has also committed nuisance by willfully damaging property, engaging in acts of vandalism within the house and abusing the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the plaintiff is in need of the house for residence and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation for his need. On inter alia allegations, the suit was instituted.

(3.) The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the defendant is not tenant in the suit house, but he is in possession of the house as owner, because the house in question belongs to his father Pahalwan, who purchased the same in the name of Indrajeet vide registered sale deed dtd. 25/11/1983 (Ex.P/2) and as such, he had no right to sell the house exclusively. As such, denying all the averments of the plaint, suit was prayed to be dismissed.