Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 202 (MP)

Rajkumar v. Rajrani

2016-03-08

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal under section 100 of the CPC is at the instance of the defendant-tenant challenging the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below. The trial Court by the judgment dated 13.5.2014 had decreed the suit for eviction being C.S. No.206-A-2010 and the first appellate Court by dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.14-A/2015 by the judgment dated 10.4.2015, has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 3. The respondent had filed the suit for eviction pleading that he had purchased the suit shop from its earlier owner Jaswant Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 9.2.2009. The suit shop was taken on rent by the appellant from its earlier owner. The adjoining shop purchased by the respondent was got vacated from the tenant Mohanlal on 17.3.2010. The earlier owner as well as the respondent had given the notice dated 4.4.2009 to the appellant intimating the purchase of the suit shop by the respondent but even thereafter the rent was not paid by the respondent to the appellant. It was further alleged that the suit shop was sublet by the appellant and the suit shop was required bonafidely by the respondent for the business need of his two sons Sumit and Charanpal for starting the grocery shop by removing the wall between the suit shop and the shop of Mohanlal. 4. The suit was opposed by the appellant admitting the tenancy from the earlier owner but denying any notice of attornment of tenancy. It was further pleaded that the rent by Money Order was sent to the earlier owner which was not accepted, hence the proceedings for depositing the rent in the Court under section 25 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was taken. The bona fide need and sub-letting of the premises was denied and the landlord-tenant relationship was disputed. 5. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit for eviction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that no landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties since there is no notice of attornment to the appellants. He further submits that no bonafide need exists since the sons of the respondent have no experience of grocery shop and that the subletting is not proved, since there is no evidence of parting with exclusive possession of the suit shop. 7. He further submits that no bonafide need exists since the sons of the respondent have no experience of grocery shop and that the subletting is not proved, since there is no evidence of parting with exclusive possession of the suit shop. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that both the Courts below have dealt with the issue of landlord-tenant relationship elaborately and have reached to the conclusion that the appellant was the tenant of the earlier owner and the suit shop was purchased by the respondent from the earlier owner. It has further been found that after the sale, the notice was given by the respondent as also the earlier owner to the appellant intimating about sale and requiring him to pay the rent to the respondent. The notice (Ex.P-9) has been taken into account by the Courts below in this regard. The Courts below have also noted another circumstance that before filing of the suit, the appellant had filed an application under section 25 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, in which the respondent was also impleaded as party and in the cross-examination the appellant had admitted the title of the respondent. Considering the evidence on record the finding of attornment has been recorded in favour of the respondent. Such a finding is a pure finding of fact which has been concurrently arrived at by the two Courts below. The Courts below have rightly reached to the conclusion that the landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties. 8. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal, reported in (2014)2 SCC 788 , judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Shashi Jain v. Khanduja and Company, reported in 2005(I) MPACJ 199, in the matter of Kandhi Lal v. Abhilash Kumar, reported in 2007(II) MPACJ 377, and the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Madanlal v. Manakchand, reported in AIR 1971 Rajasthan 55, but he is not entitled to the benefit of these judgments since in the present case it has concurrently been found that notice of attornment was given to the appellant. 9. 9. So far as the bona fide need is concerned, both the Courts below have found that the two sons of the respondent are major and they are presently doing the business of scrap on a 'Thela' and the respondent by removing the wall between the suit shop and the shop earlier got vacated from Mohanlal, wants to use the suit shop for starting the grocery business for his two sons and there is no alternative suitable accommodation available for satisfying the said need. These findings have also been arrived at by the Courts below after due appreciation of the evidence on record. 10. So far as the issue of sub-tenancy is concerned, it has been found by the Courts below that Rekha Agrawal s/o Appellant No.2 is recorded as the proprietor of Shivam Kirana Stores and after notice (Ex.P-1) the appellant No.1 has got it entered in his name. The appellant No.2 had admitted his wife having the TIN number. On the basis of the evidence, it has been found by the Courts below that the appellant No.1 has parted with the possession of the suit shop and the same is in possession of the appellant No.2. The finding of sub-letting has been arrived at on due appreciation of evidence. 11. The above findings have been arrived at by both the Courts below after due appreciation of evidence on record and these findings are neither erroneous, nor perverse. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which is accordingly dismissed. 12. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has prayed for time to vacate the suit premises. 13. Considering the entire circumstances of the case and taking note of the use to which the suit premises has been put to, the appellant is granted time to vacate the suit premises up to 31.12.2016 on the following conditions :- (1) The appellant will furnish an undertaking before the trial Court within 4 weeks from today stating that he will handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 31.12.2016. (2) The appellant will comply with the money part of the decree within 6 weeks from today. (3) The appellant will continue to deposit the rent of the suit premises on or before 7th of each month. (2) The appellant will comply with the money part of the decree within 6 weeks from today. (3) The appellant will continue to deposit the rent of the suit premises on or before 7th of each month. (4) The appellant will not create any third party right on the suit premises in the meanwhile. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.