PUSHPA DEVI Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' second appeal against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Jaora in CRA No. 1 - A/05. By the impugned judgment and decree, the findings recorded by the trial Court were set aside and the suit for eviction filed by the respondent was decreed under section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) RESPONDENT herein filed a suit for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises as described in the plaint. The suit premises is situated in Jaora. The eviction was sought on various grounds including on the ground of section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. As usual, prior to institution of the suit there were exchanges of notices and replies between the parties and in Ex. P-7 dated 19.12.1991, a reply sent by the appellants, he came out with the story of an oral agreement of sale of the suit property in his favour and as such he denied that he was occupying the suit premises as a tenant thereof. He further denied his liability to pay any rent. This led to filing of the civil suit for eviction on various grounds including a ground covered under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. The appellant contested the suit by filing the written statement. He further stated in the written statement that pursuant to the oral agreement of sale, the appellants had already instituted a suit for specific performance and denied that he was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were struck and parties went to trial and adduced their respective evidence. Pausing here for a moment, it would be relevant to point out and complete the narration of fact with regard to the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant. The trial Court refused to pass a decree for specific performance in favour of the appellants, however, directed the respondent herein to refund a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alleged to have been received by him as an advance. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the said suit, the plaintiff as well as the defendant preferred first appeal in this Court. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiff in that suit was dismissed, however, the first appeal preferred by the defendant (present respondent) was allowed and a direction to refund Rs. 10,000/- was set aside by this Court. The judgment and decree passed by this Court had attained finality. Now coming back to the facts of the present appeal, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondent herein could not make out any ground for eviction of the appellants. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, respondent preferred a first appeal and the lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree reversed the finding and decreed the suit under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.