M P MOTOR Vs. GURAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS involved in the appeal are that the suit property bearing House No. 13-A (Cantonment No. 17-A) situated at Kingsway, Ashoka road Cantonment, Jabalpur was earlier allotted to one Shahabuddin vide Order no. 179 dated 12-9-1836 issued by the then Governor General. Shahbuddin migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. After his migration, the property was declared as evacuee property and it vested in the Government of India. It was auctioned under Rule 90 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. One Lakhvinder Singh purchased it in an auction dated 29-1-1957 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- as freehold property and sale certificate was accordingly issued in his favour on 13th May, 1962. After death of Lakhvinder Singh, it devolved upon his daughter, namely, Smt. Amrit ahluwalia by virtue of natural inheritance. Defendants/appellants executed a registered lease deed in favour of Smt. Ahluwalia and, thus, obtained the suit property from her on rent for non-residential purpose. Lease deed was renewed by the defendants on 1-9-2000. Plaintiffs purchased it from Smt. Amrit ahulwalia vide registered sale deed dated 27-9-2003. The plaintiffs after purchasing the suit property from Smt. Ahluwalia issued a notice to the defendants for payment of rent as well as for eviction. Defendants did not vacate the tenanted portion and, instead, encroached over extra portion of the plaintiffs, shown within blue lines in the plaint map. Plaintiffs needed the suit property bona fide for business of plaintiff No. 3. Thus, eviction has been sought on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need and non-vacation of encroached portion despite notice. Since the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs, eviction has also been sought on this ground. Thus, the decree for eviction has been prayed for on grounds under sections 12 (1) (a), (c), (f) and (o) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2.) DEFENDANTS/appellants vide their written statement disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. They inter alia contended that father of Smt. Ahluwalia had received the suit property under old-grants scheme and Smt. Ahluwalia was not competent to sell it to the plaintiffs without obtaining permission from the government of India. Accordingly, the registered sale deed dated 27-9-2003 is incompetent and ineffective. Defendants continued to be tenants of Smt. Ahluwalia and suit of the plaintiffs is liable to dismissal.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge after recording the evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on ground under section 12 (1) (a), (f) and (o) of the aforesaid Act. However, Claim for eviction under section 12 (1) (c) was negated.