WAHID BHAI & OTHERS Vs. MINHAZUL HAQUE SIDDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 passed by 2nd A.D.J, Sagar, in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2005, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2004, passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class- II, Sagar, in Civil Suit No. 35-A/2003, have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the defendants/respondents are in possession of the disputed house. The suit house Nos. 171 and 172 (old No. 28), Sanichari Ward, Sagar was owned by Mohammed Sabir. The suit house was purchased by the plaintiffs/appellants on 15.10.1992 by registered sale deed. Some portion of the house was rented to the Police Department and a separate suit has been filed for eviction of that part. The respondents/defendants are in possession of the first and second part of the house. Earlier it was occupied by their father- Mirazul Haque, who died 8- 10 years ago. Mirazul Haque was the tenant of Md. Sabir, the erstwhile owner of the house. The plaintiffs/appellants have claimed that there are several members in their family. They do not have sufficient accommodation in the house where they are living, nor they have any other accommodation available at Sagar. Therefore, the tenanted house is required for their own living, hence, in bona fide need of the house. Earlier the house was tenanted to Mirazul Haque by Md. Sabir and a rent deed dated 10.11.1970 was executed. Earlier the rent was Rs.60/- per month but, subsequently, it was raised to Rs.100/- per month. From 01.01.1983 till June 1983, defendants/respondents paid rent. Receipts of rent paid were given by Md. Sabir to the respondents/defendants. Thereafter, no rent was paid. Therefore, the defendants/respondents were defaulters. After their purchase, the plaintiffs received possession of the house. The plaintiffs became the owner of the house on 15.10.1992. The defendants/tenants neither tried to pay the rent nor they expressed their intent to continue the tenancy. As Mirazul Haque was the tenant of Md. Sabir, the Lrs/respondents became the tenants of Md. Sabir. After the plaintiffs purchased the suit house, the respondents became the tenants of the plaintiffs. The defendants/tenants denied the title of the plaintiffs/appellants. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of eviction. The plaintiffs sought decree of eviction, possession of the suit house and mesne profit.

(3.) The defendants/respondents opposed the contentions advanced by the appellants/plaintiffs and submitted that Ramzan Khan was also the owner of the house. Md. Sabir had no right to alone execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs/appellants are not in requirement of the present house. The plaintiffs/appellants have rented out a portion of the house in the ground floor to Md. Jalil on rent. Mirazul Haque remained in the house since 1947. Ramzan Khan had gifted the house to Mirazul Haque in the year 1947 and left for Bhopal. Mirazul Haque then became the owner of the house and was in possession of the house. Ramzan Khan and Md. Sabir never opposed the possession of Mirazul Haque. Mirazul Haque never given any rent @ Rs.60/- nor @ Rs.100/- per month, for he was never a tenant. Mirazul Haque passed away in the year 1968.