LAWS(MPH)-2019-9-264

SIREMAL JAIN (DEAD) Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN

Decided On September 09, 2019
Siremal Jain (Dead) Appellant
V/S
Pankaj Kumar Jain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22/12/2005 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No.40-A/2004, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29/07/2004 passed by the VIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.22-A/2002, whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the original appellant/defendant for eviction of the appellant on the suit premises on the ground of 12(1)(a), (c), (f) and (h) of the M.P Accomodation Control Act (hereinafter referred as Act) and for mesne profit has been decreed.

(2.) In the present case, it is not disputed that earlier Mulla Gulam Hussain was the owner and Landlord of the suit premises and the appellant occupied it as tenant of Mulla Gulam Hussain.

(3.) The respondents/plaintiffs filed this suit on 01/02/1995 with the averment that the suit premises has been purchased by the plaintiffs by registered sale deeds dated 25/04/1992 (Ex.P-9) and 27/04/1992 (Ex.P-2) separately. In other words some part of the suit premises has been purchased by respondent/plaintiff no.1 and some part by respondent/plaintiff no.2 and after purchasing of the suit premises both the plaintiffs/respondents gave joint notice to the appellant/defendant that they have purchased the suit premises and now defendant is their tenant and liable to pay Rs.431/- as rent per month as was being paid to Mulla Gulam Hussain and plaintiffs by their personal consent demanded the rent of Rs.250/- for plaintiff no.1 and the rent of Rs.181/- for plaintiff no.2. and also informed him that the house is very old and in deprecated condition and not safe for human resident, therefore re-construction is to be done and suit premises is required for bonafide need of them. But the defendant did not pay the arrears of the rent and did not vacated the house. Therefore the suit for eviction and recovery of rent and mesne profit has been filed. In the written statement the defendant denied the facts mentioned in the plaint and did not admit the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs are owner of the suit premises and he is tenant of them and also denied the fact that the plaintiffs have right to get vacant possession of the suit premises on the grounds mentioned by them in the plaint. Therefore the plaintiff has amended the plaint and also claimed eviction of the defendant on the ground of denial of title of them which substantially effect the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore they are also entitled to possession on the ground of section 12(1) (c) of the Act. During the trial, the appellant/defendant did not pay arrear of rent, therefore his right to defend the suit against the eviction has been struck down by order dated 16/04/1998. Learned Trial court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of section 12(1)(a), (c), (f) and (h) of Act and also directed to pay arrears of rent from 01/05/1992 to 31/05/1995 and thereafter from the date of institution of the suit till disposal of the case as mesne profit.