MOHANLAL GUPTA Vs. RADHESHYAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04. 07. 2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 39-A/06 passed by II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Maihar District Satna, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29. 09. 2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 17-A/05 by the Civil Judge, Class II, amarpatan.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that respondent No. 1 and his mother Smt Sunder Bai (respondent No. 2 since deceased) the predecessor in title of respondents No. 2 (a) to 2 (f), filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from non-residential accommodation situated in the town of Amarpatan, on the grounds available under Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961 (in short `the Act'), the arrears of rent, bonafide genuine requirement for the business of the respondent for which he had no alternate accommodation in such town and of disclaimer of title of the respondent with respect of the suit accommodation by the appellant. As per averments of the plaint, the respondent after purchasing some land from its earlier owner, namely, bhanu Pratap through registered sale deed dated 8. 1. 88, constructed a tin-shed and the same was given to the appellant on tenancy at the rate of Rs. 300/- P. M vide dated 20. 3. 95. Thereafter, upto 20. 3. 96, the rent of such accommodation was paid by the appellant but from April, 1996 and onwards, inspite making the demand by the respondents, the same was not paid by the appellant. The appellant by fabricating a false document initiated proceedings in the Tehsil Court for recording his possession over the land of such accommodation. Such proceeding was dismissed vide order dated 5. 7. 97. By way of initiating the aforesaid proceedings in the Tehsil Court, the appellant not only committed an act contrary to the interest of the respondents but also committed an act of nuisance by denying the title of the respondents over such property. In such circumstance, after giving the demand notice to the appellant for arrears of rent and for vacating the premises, the respondents filed the impugned suit on the grounds mentioned above.

(3.) IN the written statement, the appellant/defendant inter alia contended that initially, he was inducted as a tenant in the tin-shed in the year 1992 and not in the year 1995, at the rate of Rs. 100/- P. M. By denying the 9x7 Sq. ft. area described in the plaint, it is stated that the same was 5x4 Sq. ft and outside such shop one tin-shed measuring 9x5 Sq. ft. was also included in such tenancy. As per further averments, after receiving the notice of the respondent, he vacated the premises and handed over its possession to the respondents. Subsequently, in the month of april,1996, on account of some need of money, respondent mortgaged the aforesaid tenanted shop and also the house in consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the wife of the appellant on condition that if such mortgage money is not repaid upto December, 1997 then such transaction shall be converted into sale and, the appellant will become the owner of such property. Such mortgage money was never repaid and with intention to grab such money, the eviction suit is filed with false averments. The grounds of eviction stated in the plaint are denied with their facts. The relationship of landlord and tenant is also denied by the appellant. In support of the contention made in the written statement, various documents, except the document of alleged mortgage, have been placed on record. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.