Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 313 (MP)

S. K. Gupta v. Chelaram Ahuja

2004-03-29

S.K.PANDE

body2004
JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 26.4.2003, passed by m ADJ, Satna in C.A. No. 86-A/02, affirming the judgment-decree dated 20.2.2002, passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Satna in C.S. No. 48-A/99, defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 100 CPC. C.S. No. 48-A/99 (2-A/92) for eviction of tenant defendant-appellant was instituted on the ground that the suit house was let out to the defendant-appellant for residential-non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- p.m. Landlord plaintiff-respondent Chelaram bona fide required the suit house for establishing a shop of his major son Omprakash and there is no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city at Satna. The suit has been resisted on the ground that defendant-appellant S.K. Gupta is not the tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The suit house was let out to the partnership firm of I-Harivilas Prabhudayal of which S.K. Gupta is one of the partner. The suit house is not bona fide required by the landlord plaintiff-respondent Chelaram for residential-non-residential use of his major son Omprakash. The Civil Judge vide judgment dated 20.2.2002 in C.S. No. 48-A/99 held that defendant-appellant S.K. Gupta himself was inducted into the tenancy and the suit house was bona fide required by the landlord plaintiff-respondent for residential-non-residential use by his major son Omprakash and there is no other alternative suitable accommodation available in the city at Satna, therefore, the suit for eviction u/s 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been decreed directing the defendant-appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiff-respondent. Being aggrieved, defendant-appellant preferred C.A. No. 86-A/02 before the III ADJ, Satna. The Court below affirming the judgment-decree dated 20.2.2002, passed by Civil Judge in C.S. No. 48-A/99, dismissed the appeal. The main contention of the defendant-appellant is that he himself was not inducted into the tenancy. The suit house was let out to M/s Harivilas Prabhudayal, Zero Road, Allahabad, as such the suit filed against him was not maintainable. On the pleading aforesaid, issue No.5 was framed by the Civil Judge and marshalling the evidence on record it has been held that defendant-appellant DW 1 - S.K. Gupta himself was inducted into the tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- p.m., however, defendant-appellant S.K. Gupta is carrying on business of a shop in the name of M/s Harivilas Prabhudayal. 400/- p.m., however, defendant-appellant S.K. Gupta is carrying on business of a shop in the name of M/s Harivilas Prabhudayal. Further, against issue No.2, 3 the Civil Judge recorded a finding to the effect that the family of the plaintiff-respondent consists of 6 grown up members and one of them major son Omprakash needs the suit house for residential-non-residential purpose and there is no· other alternative suitable accommodation of the plaintiff-respondent in the city at Satna. Admittedly the tenancy was oral. Referring to rent receipts exhibit D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, it has been contended that the rent of the suit house was paid by the firm Harivilas Prabhudayal agency. The documents cannot be read to the effect that tenancy was created in the name of M/s Harivilas Prabhudayal Agency. These receipts exhibit D-1 to D-5 are to the effect that from the tenant running the shop in the name of Harivilas Prabhudayal Agency, the rent has been received. PW 1 Chelaram had stated that the suit house was let out to the defendant-appellant PW 1 S.K. Gupta. DW 1 - S.K. Gupta himself has stated that firm Harivilas Prabhudayal was functioning at Allahabad of whose he was a partner. He obtained the suit house from PW 1 - Chelaram to commence business at Satna also. The business of firm Harivilas Prabhudayal accordingly is being carried out by him in the suit house. Apart from this, there is no evidence on record to suggest that tenancy was created in favour of firm Harivilas Prabhudayal. No documentary evidence has been produced by the defendant-appellant DW 1 S.K. Gupta to substantiate his contention that the firm was inducted into the tenancy. The Courts below on consideration held that DW 1 S.K. Gupta himself was inducted into the tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- p.m. and he commenced his shop in the name of Harivilas Prabhudayal. This would not mean that the firm concerned was inducted into the tenancy. From the statements of PW 1 Chelaram, PW 2 Ram Mitra, PW 3 Omprakash, PW 4 Gurudas, the Court below held that the entire house consists of7 rooms. Defendant-appellant is occupying 4 rooms as a tenant and the remaining three rooms only are in possession of PW 1 Chelaram. From the statements of PW 1 Chelaram, PW 2 Ram Mitra, PW 3 Omprakash, PW 4 Gurudas, the Court below held that the entire house consists of7 rooms. Defendant-appellant is occupying 4 rooms as a tenant and the remaining three rooms only are in possession of PW 1 Chelaram. The family consists of 6 members and PW 3 Omprakash, the major son bona fide required the suit house for residential-non-residential purpose and there is no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city at Satna. PW 3 Omprakash was married in the year 1996. On the basis of evidence, the Courts below have concurrently held that defendant-appellant S.K. Gupta was inducted into the tenancy. Further, the suit house for composite tenancy has been bona fide required by the plaintiff-respondent for use-occupation by his major son Omprakash and there is no other alternative suitable accommodation available in the city. The aforesaid findings of fact are neither perverse nor illegal. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises for determination in this appeal. Consequently, affirming the judgment-decree passed by Courts below, the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the defendant appellant is directed to vacate the suit house by 31.5.2004. Defendant-appellant shall bear his cost and pay the cost of the plaintiff-respondent. Counsel fee as per rule or certificate (whichever is less).