HAMEEDA BEGUM Vs. CHAMPA BAI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15. 7. 03 passed by 18th Addl. District Judge (Fast track Court), Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 11 -A/2002. The plaintiffs/appellants had filed the instant suit for declaring that sale deeds dated 3. 2. 82 and 20. 9. 82 executed in favour of Inder Kumar Jain/defendant no. 3 to be null and void. Prayer has also been made for grant of eyiction decree against the tenant on the grounds contemplated under Sections 12 (l) (f), (b) and (c) of M. P. Accommodation Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) IT is averred in the plaint that plaintiffs are owner cum landlord of the dwelling house bearing no. 667,667/1 to 667/3 situated at Kotwali Ward, Jabalpur known as "kudratmanjil". The suit house was let out to late Shikharchand Jain, father of inder Kumar Jain vide registered lease deed dated 1. 5. 68 at the monthly rent of rs. 150/- for non-residential purposes. House is double storey building shown in red colour in the plaint map. Defendant no. 1 is widow of late Shri Shikharchand jain, other two defendants are sons of late Shikharchand Jain, they had inherited the tenancy rights in the suit house after death of Shik. l47-A/88 which was decided on 30. 7. 91 by 9th civil Judge, Class-II,jabalpur under Sections 12 (l) (f), (b) and (c) of the Act. During pendency of said ejectment suit in the life time of the original tenant shikharchand Jain, his son Inder Kumar Jain had purchased a portion of the suit house from Smt. Begum Bi (since deceased) by a registered sale deed dated 3. 2. 82. The sale deed was executed on the basis of gift deed dated 17. 4. 74. The defendant no. 3 Inder Kumar Jain further purchased undivided share in the suit house during pendency of civil suit no. 147-A/88 vide registered sale deed dated 20. 9. 82.

(3.) IT is also averred in the plaint that sale deed dated 3. 2. 82 and 20. 9. 82 have become null and void ab initio as the steps have not been taken by the purchaser for partition and possession, remedy has become barred by limitation now by virtue of Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963. Present value of the suit house is worth Rs. 25 Lacs. The right of the defendant no. 3 stands extinguished by passage of time being stranger purchaser of the suit dwelling house, therefore, collateral and incidental findings of the former suit cannot be said to be res judicata, plaintiff no. 2 is a practicing lawyer at Jabalpur, he requires the suit accommodation bona fide for non-residential purpose to start office of Advocacy. He is not having any other alternative suitable accommodation for the said purpose. He-is running office in a rented accommodation belonging to a trust namely, Duccani Muslim musafir Khana" near Clock Tower, Omti, Jabalpur. Defendants had sub-let 2nd floor of the suit house without written consent of the plaintiffs to others, they are liable to be evicted under section 12 (l) (b) of the Act. Accommodation had been sub-let to late Bala Prasad. The defendants denied the contract of tenancy as well as title of the plaintiffs in the written statement which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of plaintiffsaandlord. The decision of SA no. 813/95 cannot operate as res judicata, it is not based on law. Suit has been valued at Rs. 8 Lacs for declaring the sale deeds as null and void, for the purpose of ejectment in the MP Accommodation Control Act, it has been valued at 12 times of monthly rent.