SUSHIL Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 10/1/2012 passed by the 16th Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Indore in Civil Suit No. 30A/2009 by which the suit for eviction filed by respondent Bhagwandas, under section 12(1)(a), (c) & (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, has been decreed.

(2.) Facts of the case reveal that plaintiff Bhagwandas is the landlord and the defendant Sushil and Manohar are tenant in respect of House No. 18/1 (a shop), area 10' x 32'. The shop was given on rent under written agreement dated 1/12/1998 on monthly rent of Rs. 3800/-. The rent agreement also included that after 11 months there shall be an increase by 5% towards the rent. As per the plaint averment the defendants paid rent w.e.f. 1/12/1998 to 31/10/1999 @ Rs. 3800/- per month and thereafter w.e.f. 1/11/1999 to 30/9/2000 @ Rs. 3990/- and every year it was accordingly increased. The rent was paid w.e.f. 1/9/2001 to 31/10/2005 @ 4180/-, however, the 5% enhancement was not included and subsequently as there was a default in increasing the rent by 5% of the total rent, it was stated by the plaintiff that upto 30/11/2004 the difference amount comes to Rs. 22,055/-. For the period w.e.f. 1/12/2004 to 31/1/2005 the difference amount was Rs. 1826/- and for the period w.e.f 1/2/2005 to 30/4/2005 the difference amount which was not paid was Rs. 5093/- and for the period w.e.f. 1/5/2005 to 31/7/2005 the difference amount on account of enhancement which was not paid was Rs. 16042/-. It was also stated in the plaint that as and when a demand made by the plaintiff for payment of amount, the defendants used to abuse the plaintiff and, therefore, a notice was served to the defendants through registered post dated 26/7/2005 and even after receiving the notice, the amount was not paid. As the amount was not paid, the plaintiff landlord filed a Civil Suit claiming arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,84,829.00.

(3.) A Written Statement was filed and the defendant denied the landlord - tenant relationship, there was a categorical denial in respect of the rent agreement and it was stated that the owner of the shop is one Hothchand Vasudev s/o Parmanand. Thus, there was a categorical denial on the part of the respondent in respect of the title of the plaintiff.