BHAGWATI TIWARI Vs. MAKHANLAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/plaintiffs have directed this appeal under Section 96 of the cpc being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9. 9. 2002 passed by XIIth addl. District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 89-A/2000 dismissing their suit filed against the respondents for declaration, possession, eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellants herein filed a suit for declaration, possession, eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the respondents contending that the House No. 2042 (Old No. 626) situated at Sitlamai, Ward No. 10, Jabalpur, was bought by the appellants from its earlier owners, namely, Gulam Qadir, Sheikh Ramzan, Sheikh Zafar, Mohd. Sameer and mussamat Sameeran with consideration vide registered sale deed dated 27. 2. 1989. In two rooms (one room and one Kotha) of the aforesaid house described in the annexed map with the plaint, the predecessor of the respondents, namely, Late narmada Prasad Yadav, was the tenant of the earlier aforesaid owners. On acquisition of the title by the appellants, such tenancy was attorned by the respondents in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, the respondents became their tenant at the rate of Rs. 75 P. M. The predecessor of the respondents was inducted in such premises for residential purpose. The same was remain continued even after attornment of the aforesaid tenancy. The month of the tenancy was the english Calender month commencing from the first day of each month. After attornment of the tenancy, the respondent paid one month rent of March, 1989 to the appellants and thereafter they did not pay the same and became defaulter in that regard. The appellant No. 1 Smt Bhagwati Tiwari was under bonafide, genuine need of such accommodation for the purpose of residence of her family members. Thus, she being widow, filed the application against the respondents for their eviction under Section 23-A of the Accommodation Control Act (in short `the Act') before the Rent Controlling Authority on dated 19. 2. 1990 as Case no. 19-A/90 (7) 89-90. The same was dismissed vide order dated 11. 2. 91 holding that such proceeding is filed at pre-mature stage before completion of one year from the date of acquisition of the title and the relationship as landlord and tenant has not been proved between them. Subsequent to such dismissal, on completion of one year again an application under Section 23-A of the Act on the ground of bonafide, genuine requirement of residential purpose was filed against the respondents for eviction as Case No. 12-A/90 (7)91-92 the same was dismissed vide order dated 26. 12. 1993 holding that the subsequent application is barred by resjudicata in view of the aforesaid earlier order dated 11. 2. 91, by which the relationship of the landlord and tenant between them was not found to be proved, on which, the appellants preferred civil revision No. 145/94 before this court. The same was dismissed by affirming the aforesaid subsequent order of the Rent controlling Authority. Subsequent to such dismissal a suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to vacate such premises stating them to be the licensee of the appellants, was filed. The same was dismissed by the IVth Civil judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 697-A/98 vide judgment and decree dated 30. 6. 2000 holding that such court has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter as the suit is not filed on proper valuation with requisite court fees as the court was having the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit valued upto rs. 30,000/-to 50,000/-while the valuation of the disputed house was Rs. 80,000/ -. Simultaneously, it was held that the respondents are not in possession of such accommodation as licensee of the appellants. After dismissal of such suit, the present suit was filed declaring the respondents to be the tenants of the appellants in the aforesaid premises at the rate of Rs. 75/-P. M and claiming their eviction from it on the grounds available under Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (c),12 (1) (d),12 (1) (e),12 (1) (h) and 12 (1) (k) of the Act stating that the appellants intimated to the respondents regarding acquisition of the aforesaid title of the house , on which, they attorned their tenancy in their favour and also paid the rent of a month. Thereafter, they became defaulter and the aforesaid other grounds for eviction are also available to the appellants. The suit was filed after giving the notice for termination of tenancy on the aforesaid grounds.

(3.) IN the written statement of the respondents, by denying the averments of the plaint it is stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them as held by the Rent Controlling Authority. The same is a also upheld by this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid earlier order, having the effect of resjudicata and such findings cannot be interfered by holding the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. It is also stated that in the lack of relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties, the appellants are not entitled to get the decree on the ground available for eviction under Section 12 of the Act. The alleged arrears of rent is also denied. As per further averments the respondents never denied the title of the landlord. The alleged need of the appellants is neither bonafide nor genuine as they had additional alternate accommodation with them. The contention of the plaint alleging that the house was damaged by the respondents is also denied. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.