Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 456 (MP)

Dwarika Prasad v. Ram Swaroop Soni

2020-03-20

ANJULI PALO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the tenant of the respondent, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2019 passed by the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 22-A/2019. 2. It is not in dispute that earlier Lower Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court vide order dated 30.9.2014 to reconsider the suit on the basis of its merits, which order was challegned in M.A. No. 2920/2014 in the High Court. This Court had set aside the order and remanded the case to the Lower Appellate Court to consider applications filed under Order 6 rule 17 and Order 41 rule 27 of CPC then the First Appellate Court should adjudicate the case as per its merits. 3. The respondent's case is that he purchased the suit property on 20.9.1995 by a registered sale deed and got possession of the same. It is alleged by the respondent that till 1st November, 1995 on the disputed land a 'Kachcha Tapra' was lying vacant and the same was let out to the appellant @ Rs.100/- per month for non-residential purposes. Till 1st May, 2003, the appellant paid regular rent to the respondent, thereafter he stopped making payment. The respondent gave notice to him, even then appellant failed to pay the arrears of rent to him. In June, 2003, when the respondent demanded arrears of rent from the appellant, he found that the appellant started digging the land besides the said 'Tapra' with a view to construct latrine over it. The construction was completed by appellant wihout his consent and permission. 4. Further that, the respondent is in bona fide need of the suit property for his business and also wanted to reconstruct the 'Tapra' because during occurrence of earthquake in April, 1997, said Tapra changed into dilapidated condition and become dangerous to life. Nagar Nigam passed a map for raising the construction over the suit property. The respondent claimed that he has no alternative place for doing his business. Therefore, he filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent of Rs. 1,700/- against the appellant. 5. Appellant denied the case of the respondent claiming that he never sold the suit property to the respondent. He is in possession of the suit property as the owner thereof. Therefore, he filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent of Rs. 1,700/- against the appellant. 5. Appellant denied the case of the respondent claiming that he never sold the suit property to the respondent. He is in possession of the suit property as the owner thereof. In fact, after the death of the parents of the respondent, he is working at his shop. The respondent is entirely dependent on the appellant. Thus, on account of undue influence, the respondent falsely executed an agreement and used it as a sale deed dated 30.9.1995. There is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant. Hence, respondent is not entitled for any relief claimed by him. 6. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that appellant is the tenant of the respondent @ Rs.100/- per month in the suit shop. The appellant denied the same and challenged the ownership of the respondent. Hence, under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, he is entitled for a decree of eviction. Similarly, he is in bona fide need of the suit property to start the business. He has no alternative shop in the Jabalpur. Thus, learned trial Court passed a decree of eviction against the appellant holding that the respondent is not entitled for decree under sections 12 (1)(a), 12 (1)(o), 12 (1)(g), 12 (1)(h), and 12 (1)(m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and for the arrears of rent of Rs.1,700/- per month for mandatory injunction, but the Court directed to the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent within two months and pay rent of Rs.100/- from the date of institution of suit, i.e. 20.10.2004 upto delivery of the suit property. 7. Findings of the learned trial Court are challenged by the appellant before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which are affirmed by the appellate Court holding that the respondent duly proved that appeal is not maintainable because appellant has failed to prove that he had complied with the provisions enshrined under section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Even though, the trial Court directed him on 16.6.2012 to pay the entire arrears of rent till next date of hearing. Even though, the trial Court directed him on 16.6.2012 to pay the entire arrears of rent till next date of hearing. After passing the impugned judgment by the trial Court, till the date of judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, he has failed to pay rent of the suit property incompliance of section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Thus, his defence was struck off, as mentioned in para 16 of the impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Court. 8. In the case of Jagdish and another v. Omprakash and another, 2001 (1) MPLJ 568 , it is held that : "22. In the present case, as has already been noticed hereinabove, the suit of the plaintiffs had been decreed. The defendants had been found to be defaulters in the payment of rent. There is nothing to indicate that any amount whatsoever had been deposited by the tenants during the pendency of the appeal either towards arrears of rent or towards the current rent. No explanation seeking condonation of delay in the deposit of the rent had been filed. The mandatory requirement envisaged under section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 had not been complied with. 23. The expressions "in any appeal or any other proceeding by a tenant against any decree or order for his eviction" as used in section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act clearly bring within the ambit of the aforesaid provision, not only the proceedings under Order 9 rules 13 of the Civil Procedure Code but an appeal filed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting such an application. It is therefore, obvious that the failure of the tenants to comply with the mandatory requirements envisaged under section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act disentitled them from raising any defence against their eviction with the consequential result that it was no longer open to the first appellate Court to proceed to hear the appeal on merits and the only option left to it in the circumstances was to dismiss the same." 9. After considering the findings recorded by both the Courts below this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality and peversity in the findings of the Courts below and further no substantital question of law arises in the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed at this stage.