TAHIR ALI Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 10.1.2017 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Mhow, District Indore by which the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2015 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Mhow, District Indore has been affirmed.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that the respondent/plaintiff being the owner of House No.2788/A, Tanga Khana, Yadav Mohalla, Mhow, District Indore, filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the defendant/tenant . According to the plaintiff, one room of the aforesaid house was given on rent to Late Tillu, the father of the defendant by the erstwhile owner viz. Late Radhabai. The tenancy was oral and the rent was Rs.5/- per month. Later on she had sold the said house to Moolchand.The plaintiff purchased the said house from Moolchand by registered sale-deed dated 7.10.2003. Thereafter, he sent an information by way of a notice to the defendant, which he received on 20.5.2004. The defendant replied the said notice by denying the ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff again sent a registered notice dated 22.8.2008 to the defendant, which was replied by him vide letter dated 14.10.2008. After terminating the tenancy by the above notices, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction u/s. 12(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, for short, "the Act"). The plaintiff claimed the arrears of rent from 7.10.2003 to 30.9.2008 amounting to Rs.300/- and also claimed Rs.3,250/- from 1.10.2008 to 15.4.2009. The plaintiff sought the decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need as the existing house was insufficient for his family. According to the plaintiff, he has two sons viz. Arun and Amit and two daughters who are married now. At present he is residing jointly with his brother Govardhandas in House No.2787 in the same locality. His brother is having four sons and they all are residing jointly. Since the said house is insufficient for his family, therefore, he sought eviction of the defendant from the rented accommodation.

(3.) After notice, defendant filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. By way of special pleading, the defendant pleaded that the said house was initially owned by one Durgabai who kept his father Tillu as a tenant. Before the death, his father Tillu, he left the said house and started living in Indore city and at present, the wife and daughter of Tillu are residing in the said rented accommodation hence they are necessary parties in the suit. It was also stated that his ancestors are residing in the said rented accommodation since last 60-70 years. Durgabai had assured his father Tillu that she will sell the said accommodation to him, but she sold the said accommodation to Moolchand who constructed a 4-storied building. Moolchand had also filed a suit for eviction against the Tillu, but the said suit had already been dismissed. Lateron Moolchand also assured late Tillu that he will sell the rented accommodation to him, but he has also l sold the same to the present plaintiff. The legal heirs of Tillu were ready to purchase the said rented accommodation in a consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- and they have also spent Rs.50,000/- towards repairs of the rented accommodation.