DEVI BAI Vs. SHANKARJI MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 18/11/2003 passed by District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No.99A/2001 affirming the judgment and decree of eviction dtd. 28/9/2001 passed by Third Civil Judge Class- I, Murwara, Katni in Civil Suit No.22A/1991, whereby Trial Court decreed plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the grounds under Sec. 12(1)(a),(c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") and in appeal filed by the defendants, First Appellate Court upheld the decree of eviction on the ground under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Act and reversed the decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on the grounds under Sec. 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act.

(2.) Facts in short are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction on the allegations that house No.128 situated in Jhanda Bazar, Murwara is owned by plaintiff 1 Temple Shri Shankar Ji, which was got constructed by ancestors of the plaintiff 2-Dwarka Prasad, as such the Temple Shri Shankar Ji is his private property and in one of the shops, original defendant-Sunder Das (now dead, through LRs) is tenant on monthly rent of Rs.22.00. It is alleged that the defendant is not paying monthly rent regularly and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 14/6/1980 and the plaintiffs are in need of the shop for their personal use. It is also alleged that the defendant has denied title of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction on the ground under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Act also. On inter alia allegations, the suit was prayed to be decreed.

(3.) The defendant appeared and filed written statement and contended that the shop in question was allotted by the Rent Controller on 26/10/1953 and at that time, shop in question was under the ownership of Temple Shri Shankar Ji and Chhedilal, as such the defendant was paying rent to them equally. It is contended that in the meantime, plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad started claiming himself to be Sarvaharakar and owner, therefore, defendant started paying rent to plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad. It is contended that the Temple Shri Shankar Ji is a public Temple and plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad or late Chhedilal are not owner of the shop in question. The defendant also denied arrears of rent and bonafide requirement alleged by the plaintiffs. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.