SATYA NARAYAN MUKHERJEE Vs. SINGHAI AMRITLAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants second appeal against decree for eviction passed against him by the lower appellate Court under Section 12(1)(c), (e) and (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the grounds of disclaimer of title, bonafide need, for residence of the landlord and the tenant having unauthorised possession, which was not included in accommodation let out to him.

(2.) The present suit filed on 30.9.1964 by Singhai Mojilal and two sons, Amritlal and Garibdas, contending that they are the owners and having validly terminated the tenancy of the original defendant-tenant S.N. Mukherjee. The plaintiff sought eviction under Section 12(1)(k) and (o) of the Act on the ground that the tenant had caused damage to the accommodation to the three rooms in the outhouse shown in blue pencil in the plaint map and that he has taken unauthorised possession, portion which was not let out to him, shown in red pencil in the plaint map. The tenancy was monthly commencing from the first of each month in respect of the portion of bungalow No. 309, Napier Town, Jabalpur. Mojilal died on 16.1.1965. Nirmal Kumar, son of Garibdas was joined as a party in the suit on his application, as he claimed he got the suit property on the basis of a will. It appears that there was a dissolution of the partnership between Amritlal and Garibdas on 23.2.1971 and the suit property came to the share of Amritlal. Therefore, Garibdas and Nirmal Kumar were transposed as defendants 2 and 3. There was an oral partition between Amritlal, his wife and sons and the suit property came to the share of his son Satyendra Kumar. Accordingly Satyendra Kumar was joined plaintiff No. 2 on 24.2.1972. On an application moved by him, he was permitted to amend the plaint on 5.12.1974 by which he claimed eviction on the additional ground under Section 12(1)(c) and (e), contending that he requires the suit accommodation as he wants to start profession as Chartered Accountant and his wife has been offered a teacher's job at Jabalpur and they have no other accommodation of their own in the City of Jabalpur. He also contested that during the pendency of the suit the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff. The original defendant in his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff and submitted that the plaint map is wrong and the outhouses on eastern side of the bungalow form part of the demised premises and the outhouses on the southern side of the bungalow were let out to the defendant. The suit property was the individual property of Singhai Mojilal and his sons had no share therein. The quit notice is bad as it did not give 2 years time to vacate as was agreed between the parties. In any case the cause of auction does not survive because of the transfer of interest during the pendency of the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The trial Court held that the suit house belonged to Singhai Mojilal and his 2 sons and after his death there was dissolution of the partnership and it came to the exclusive share of Amritlal. There was subsequently partition between Amritlal and his wife and sons and suit house came to the share of Satyendra Kumar. The defendant's tenancy has been validly terminated and he never raised any objection regarding the competency of the original plaintiffs to terminate his tenancy. He has not substantiated that two years time was required to be given for vacating the house. The tenancy was validly terminated and the subsequent transfer of interest during the pendency of the suit can have no effect on the validity of the quit notice. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the need under Section 12(1)(c) that the defendant has denied their title during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs have also failed to prove that the plaintiff No. 2 is in bonafide need of the suit accommodation for his residence. The ground under Section 12(1)(c) was not pleaded at the time when the plaintiff No. 2 was added as a party but it was subsequently added much later. It was also not proved that the three rooms in the outhouse were demolished or damaged by the defendant and the ground under Section 12(1)(k) also failed. The plaintiffs also have not made out the ground under Section 12(1)(o). The three rooms in the outhouse shown in red pencil were part of the demised premises and the defendant had not taken unauthorised possession of the same. There, the suit was dismissed.