ABDUL SALAM Vs. SHAHJEHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 10-10-05 passed by ADJ, Amarpatan (link court at Maihar) in C.A. No. 145-A/05 affirming the judgment-decree dated 16-3-05 passed by Additional Civil Judge Clot II, Maihar in C.S. No. 124-A/03, defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, C.P.C.

(2.) Prakash Chand S/o Gulab Chand Agrawal was owner of suit accommodation 307/4, Ward No. 14, Katra, Maihar described in plaint map by red ink. Defendant/appellant was inducted into tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- P.M. Prakash Chand S/o Gulab Chand Agrawal vide registered sale deed dated 26-4-01 (exhibit P-1) sold the suit accommodation to plaintiff/ respondent Smt. Shahjehan. Defendant/appellant was served with a notice informing the purchase of suit accommodation vide registered sale deed (exhibit P-1). Defendant/appellant continued in possession of the suit accommodation as a tenant of the plaintiff/respondent. Plaintiff/respondent at present is doing her business on a portion of foot path and the suit accommodation is bona fide required for starting a business of her own. There is no other suitable alternative accommodation of her own in the city at Maihar. As such serving a notice defendant/appellant was called upon to vacate and deliver possession of the suit accommodation. Since the defendant/appellant did not comply with the direction, plaintiff/respondent instituted C.S. No. 124-A/03 before the Civil Judge seeking eviction of tenant-defendant/appellant under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.Resisting the suit defendant/appellant inter alia contended that brother of plaintiff/respondent infact is the purchaser, however, the sale deed (exhibit P-1) was got executed in the name of plaintiff/respondent. The suit accommodation is not bona fide required by the plaintiff/respondent for starting it business of her own as she is engaged in making of bidies as a labourer of bidi contractor.

(3.) P.W.-1 Smt. Shahjehan has stated that vide registered sale deed (exhibit P-1) the suit accommodation was purchased from Prakash Chand s/o Gulab Chand Agrawal. Notice (exhibit P-6) accordingly was sent to the defendant/appellant. It is contended that without calling an attesting witness, the Courts below erred in accepting the proof of execution of sale deed (exhibit P-1). Proviso to Section 68 Evidence Act is to the effect that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.