KALLURAM Vs. BABU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1972 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Appeal No. 37-A of 1968.

(2.) The appeal arises of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant against the respondent for eviction. The plaintiff's case was that the suit accommodation was let out to one Chandkhan by the plaintiff and that after the death of Chandkhan the defendant was in possession of the suit accommodation as his heir. It was further averred that the defendant failed to pay any rent due to the plaintiff and that he had also denied the plaintiff's title to the suit house. It was also contended that the suit accommodation was bona fide required by the plaintiff for rebuilding. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed ejectment under section 1211)(a)(c) and (g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that he was not the tenant of the plaintiff. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit accommodation was let out to Chandkhan as alleged by the plaintiff. The trial court, therefore, held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Chandkhan or between the plaintiff or between the plaintiff and the defendant. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this second appeal.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be dismissed. To prove the contract of tenancy, the plaintiff examined Ramnarayan (P.W. 3) who stated that he used to realise rent from Chandkhan on behalf of the plaintiff till the year 1960. This witness at first stated that he was realising rent from the year 1964 but subsequently he corrected himself and stated that he used to realise rent from the year 1964. The court below did not think it safe to place reliance on the testimony of this witness for holding that the suit accommodation was let out to Chandkhan by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court failed to decide the question as to whether the defendant was able to make out the case of ownership set up by him. There is no substance in this contention. It was for the plaintiff to establish the contract of tenancy as alleged by him and even though the defendant might not have been able to prove the case set up by him, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in view of the coo. current finding of fact that he failed to establish the contract of tenancy between the plaintiff and Chandkhan or between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.