RAM CHARAN SINGH Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff landlord. He succeeded in convincing the Trial Court that Brij Bhushan, respondent tenant had sublet the premises to respondent Sevapuri who has since died and is represented by his legal heirs. This finding was reversed by the First Appellate Court. This is how this appeal has come to be filed in this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal be noticed : A suit was filed in the year 1968. The plea taken was that the plaintiff appellant required the premises for his personal use. A plea was also taken that Brijbhushan, the tenant had sublet the premises to Sevapuri. The Trial Court as noticed above came to the conclusion that eviction on the basis of grounds provided in section 12 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 1961 Act) stands established. The landlord was however non-suited with regard to the ground stipulated in section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. Against the decree of eviction an appeal was preferred. The appellant wanted to urge before the appellate Court the ground that the Trial Court had wrongly appreciated the case vis-a-vis bona fide need. This plea was not permitted to be taken because the Court below came to the conclusion that a cross appeal had not been preferred. It further came to the conclusion that the plea of subletting had not been established. It accepted the version put forward by the sub-tenant that he was inducted in the premises in pursuance of an agreement to sell. The plea taken by the respondent Sevapuri in his written statement was to the effect that there was an oral agreement to sell the property in dispute. The sale consideration was said to be Rs. 7,000/ -. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was duly paid. This payment is said to have been made on 27th November, 1966, in the presence of Baburam, Laxmichand and Rafique. In para-2 of the written statement it was elaborated that the plaintiff is a close friend of one Ashajit who is related to respondent No. 2 Sevapuri. It was, therefore not thought necessary to have a written receipt. It was elaborated that the arrangement was that till a sale deed is executed Sevapuri would occupy the premises as tenant and he along with respondent No. 1 would keep on paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 35/ -. It was accordingly pleaded that Sevapuri respondent No. 2 was inducted on the basis of the intention so expressed by the appellant landlord. With a view to further support the plea that there was an agreement to sell, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had written a letter asking this respondent Sevapuri to pay the balance of the amount and also pay the uptodate rent.

(3.) SO the plea which is being taken by Sevapuri is that he was inducted in the premises in pursuance of an agreement to sell. He accordingly pleaded that the question of sub-letting does not arise. It had also been contended by Sevapuri that he had been inducted in pursuance of oral agreement which stand proved by Exhibit D-1. It was accordingly pleaded that the subletting should be taken to have come into existence with the consent of the landlord.