Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 378 (MP)

Shankarlal Yadav v. Arjun Singh

2004-04-19

S.K.PANDE

body2004
JUDGMENT Arguments heard. Record of C.S. No. 260-A/87, Court of IV Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal perused. Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 3.5.2003, passed by ADJ, Bhopal in C.A. No. 14-A/02, affirming the judgment-decree dated 30.11.2001 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in C.S. No. 260-A/87, tenant-defelldantlappel1ant has preferred this appeal u/s 100 CPC. Plaintiff-respondents instituted C.S. No. 260-A/87 against tenant defendant-appellant Shankerlal Yadav seeking eviction u/s 12 (1)(e)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act stating inter alia that defendant appellant is a tenant in the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- p.m. The joint family of the plaintiff-respondents consists of 45 members and the suit house in possession of the tenant-defendant-appellant is bonafide required by the landlord-plaintiff-respondents for occupation as residence for themselves and other family members. The tenant-defendant appellant has built a house of his own which is suitable for his residence. The suit aforesaid· has been resisted by the tenant-defendant-appellant stating inter alia that he is not a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent and the suit house is bona fide required by them for their own occupation and residence of other family members. Further, the house constructed by the tenant-defendant-appellant is not suitable for his residence. The Civil Judge vide judgment dated 30.11.2001 In C.S. No. 260-A/87 held that defendant-appellant is a tenant of plaintiff-respondents on a monthly rent of Rs, 25/- p.m. He has constructed a house of his own in the city at Bhopal and the same is suitable for his residence. Further, the joint family of the plaintiff-respondents consists of 45 members and the suit house is bona fide required by them for their own occupation and residence of other family members. Accordingly, the suit for eviction u/s 12 (1) (e) (i) has been decreed. Being aggrieved, the defendant-appellant preferred C.A. No, 14-A/02 before the ADJ, Bhopal. The, Court below affirming the judgment-decree passed by Civil Judge in C.S. No, 260-A/87, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 3.5.2002. It is contended that defendant-appellant has not been proved to be the tenant of the plaintiff-respondents. PW 1 Phool Singh has referred to exhibit P-1, the receipt, wherein the rent has been paid by the defendant-appellant DW 1 Shankerlal Yadav for the period from L4.1963 to 30.4.1963. It is contended that defendant-appellant has not been proved to be the tenant of the plaintiff-respondents. PW 1 Phool Singh has referred to exhibit P-1, the receipt, wherein the rent has been paid by the defendant-appellant DW 1 Shankerlal Yadav for the period from L4.1963 to 30.4.1963. This receipt exhibit P-l has been signed by him at A to A. Further, CS No. 288-A/90 was filed by the defendant-appellant against the plaintiff-respondent for injunction. Copy of this plaint (exhibit D-1) goes to show that in para 2, the defendant-appellant admitted his tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- p.m. and plaintiff-respondent Surjan Singh and Arjun Singh to be his landlords. DW 1 Shankerlal Yadav has admitted that he has constructed a house of his own at Srinagar Colony, Kaichi Chola, Bhopal and the same is occupied by his family members. Exhibit P-60 further goes to show that plot measuring 2400 sq.ft. was purchased by him from co-operative society and a residential house has been constructed. The defendant-appellant is living in the said house since its completion. The Courts below rightly held that grounds of eviction u/s 12 (1) (i) has been proved. PW 1 Phool Singh has stated that the joint family consists of 45 members. In this joint family, married as well as unmarried sons, grand sons also reside. The suit house consisting of one room-verandah is bona fide required for his own occupation and residence of other family members. As against this, hardly there is any evidence in rebuttal from the statement of DW 1 Shankerlal Yadav. On facts aforesaid, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Court below cannot be said to be improper or illegal. The grounds of eviction u/s 12 (1) (e) (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act have been proved and the tenant-defendant-appel1ant is liable to be evicted. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises for determination in this appeal. Consequently, affirming the judgment-decree passed by Court below, appeal fails and is dismissed. Defendant-appellant shall bear his cost and pay the cost of the respondents. Counsel fee as per rule or certificate (whichever is less).