KAMLADEVI Vs. MANJU JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2018 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Vidisha in RCA No.51/2017 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2017 passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.61-A/2015.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the respondent had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on the ground of bonafide requirement for residential purposes as well as on the ground of arrears of rent. It was the case of the respondent that the plaintiff has purchased the property in dispute by registered sale deed dated 8.10.2003 from Rajendra Kumar Jain and Sanjay Kumar Jain. The appellants were the tenants of Rajendra Kumar Jain and Sanjay Kumar Jain and after purchasing the property, they became the tenants of the plaintiff. At the time of the execution of the sale deed, the sellers had also sent a registered notice to the appellants informing the fact of sell and they were directed that in future they shall pay the rent to the plaintiff. However, the appellants did not pay the rent to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands. It was further pleaded that the appellants have not paid the rent till 1.9.2003 and it was further prayed that since the plaintiff cannot claim the arrears of rent prior to last three years, accordingly, it was prayed that the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2003 till the filing of the suit @ Rs.60/- per month be also paid. It was further pleaded that although the plaintiff has a house situated inside the Fort, Vidisha but as the same has been occupied by the tenant, therefore, the plaintiff does not have any alternative accommodation for residential purposes in the city of Vidisha. At present, the plaintiff and her husband are residing in an ancestral house, however, because of family partition, they would be required to vacate the said house and to hand over the vacant possession to the co-sharers, therefore, it was prayed that the plaintiff requires the suit property bonafidely for residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff has also purchased the remaining part of house in which the husband of the plaintiff is carrying on the business of Medical Store. On 24.7.2012, the plaintiff had sent a notice through her counsel thereby terminating the tenancy and to vacate the premises as well as to pay the arrears of rent, however, the same was not responded. Accordingly, the suit was filed for eviction on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

(3.) The appellants filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they were never the tenants. It was further pleaded that no notice was sent by the plaintiff or her father. It was further pleaded that the appellants have regularly paid the rent of the suit premises. The appellants are continuously using the disputed three rooms apart from the other entire area for the last 50 years. The relationship of the landlord and tenant with the plaintiff was also denied and it was also pleaded that the plaintiff had never given any information about the purchase of the property. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has another three storied building situated near Pedhi School, Vidisha. It was further submitted that the ground floor of the property is being used by the appellants for commercial purposes and, therefore, the same cannot be vacated on the ground of bonafide requirement. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and, accordingly, it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.