HAJI MOHD ISLAM Vs. ASGAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN invocation of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have called in question the penetrability of the order passed in Civil Suit No. 27-A/04 by the learned Civil Judge-II, Jabalpur whereby he has rejected the application preferred under Section 65 of the Evidence Act by the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell are that the respondents initiated a civil action seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the suit house on the grounds arrears of rent, subletting and bonafide need for non-residential purpose under Section 12 (a), (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. It is the case of the respondents before the Court below that they are the landlord of building No. 662 situated at Kotwali Ward, Jabalpur and the petitioner No. 1 is the tenant of the building as per agreement dated 16-3-1976 executed between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1. The accommodation that was let out was one room and basement and was rented for Rs. 100/- per month. As putforth, the petitioner failed to pay rent despite so many demands hence, the claim was filed from 1-7-2001 till the date of filing of the suit at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Eviction was also claimed on the ground of subtenancy alleging that the petitioner No. 1 had let out the suit accommodation to his son, the petitioner No. 2 hence, that has resulted as a ground for eviction. In addition, it was pleaded that the suit accommodation was required by the respondents for keeping the goods of their shops as they have no other accommodation for keeping the same.

(3.) THE petitioners filed their written statement disputed the allegations put froth in the plaint and stated that the respondent No. 1 has let out one room in the ground floor and the basement at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. An agreement was executed in writing on 14-3-1976 as per Annexure P-4. After some time the respondents because of need requested the petitioner No. 1 for vacating the same and regard being had to the good relationship the petitioner vacated the ground floor and accordingly a new agreement was made which is known as 'tabdeeli Kirayanama'. It is set forth that the respondents were in need of big room and small room of ground floor and the same were vacated by the petitioner and now the petitioner is in possession of the basement only. Considering the aforesaid changed accommodation rent was reduced and settled at Rs. 50/- per month. The petitioners denied the arrears of rent and the factum of subletting and prayed for dismissal of the suit.