SANTOSH SINGH Vs. UMA DEVI TOMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Santosh Agrawal, counsel for the appellants.

(2.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28/09/2018, passed by III Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Regular Civil Appeal No.01 of 2018, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29/11/2017, passed by First Civil Judge, Class- II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.08A of 2014 by which the decree of eviction has been affirmed.

(3.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the appellants are the tenants of the suit premises, whereas the respondent No.1 being the sole legal representative of Baldev Singh, is the owner of the property in dispute. The disputed building is about 80-85 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and notice has also been issued by the Municipal Council on 11/09/2000. A notice dated 23/05/2000 was issued to the appellants for vacating the premises and for payment of rent, however, neither the appellants paid the rent nor vacated the suit premises. The rent up-to 30/06/2013 is outstanding. The husband of the respondent No.1 has expired in the year 2011 and her sons Mahendra and Bhupendra are unemployed and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is residing in a tenanted premises in Sihore. She does not have any alternative accommodation for her residential purposes. Accordingly, the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 30/05/2013, thereby terminating the tenancy and the appellants were directed to vacate the suit premises, however, the appellants have given a wrong reply and thus, the suit was filed for eviction as well as for recovery of rent.