KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Misc. Second Appeal under S.32 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the landlord against the order dated 29-11-88 passed by the Ist Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Mandsaur in Misc. Appeal No.33/ 88, affirming the order dated 28-10-88 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Case No.2/ 88-89/ A-90 (4) whereby the Rent Controlling Authority in a case started on the application of the tenants under S.38 of the Act, has allowed an interim application of the tenants, directing the landlord not to deprive the tenants from enjoyment of essential services of the disputed latrine and bathroom and to remove obstruction created by him.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows : The respondents-tenants Laxminarayan, Dinesh Chandra, Manaklal, Basantrao and Kantilal filed an application under S.38 of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority alleging that the appellant Krishna Gopal s/o Shankarlal and other heirs of deceased Shankarlal are the landlords in respect of the accommodation let to the respondents tenants. It is also alleged that the appellant Krishna Gopal holds a Power of Attorney from the other heirs of Shankarlal and lives in one half portion of the house and the other half portion of the house forms the rented accommodation in question in which the respondent-tenants reside. The tenanted accommodation in occupation of the tenants includes one flush latrine and one bathroom having a watertap located on the groundfloor. The respondents-tenants alleged that with a view to get the accommodation in question vacated by them the rented accommodation excepting the latrine and bathroom aforesaid was sold by the appellant to Kantilal s/o Nanalal Soni on 27-2-88. As a result of such sale effected by the appellant the respondents become the tenants of the purchaser in respect of the accommodation in question except the latrine and the bathroom in respect of which they continued to be the tenants of the appellant. Subsequently, on 15-6-88 the appellant closed the door of bathroom from inside and on 12-10-88 he blocked the septictank attached to the latrine. The respondents tenants, therefore, prayed for restoration of the essential services to them by giving a direction to the appellant in that behalf.

(3.) The reply of the appellant Krishnagopal to the respondents' application under S.38 of the Act was that the disputed latrine and bathroom did not form part of the rented accommodation and the respondents did not use the said latrine and bathroom and that the respondents were tenants of the portion of the house which belonged to his mother Basantibai and brothers Babulal and Jagdish and that portion was sold to Kantilal and Laxmiarayan sons of Nanalal Soni on 27-2-88 whereafter the respondents no more remained tenants of the mother and brothers of the appellant and on the other hand became tenants of the purchasers. The contention raised by the appellant, in short, was that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondents, in any case, after the sale of the tenanted accommodation on 27-2-88 in favour of Kantilal and Laxminarayan, sons of Nanalal who are not impleaded as parties by the respondents-tenants.