S.A. No. 42 of 2014. Case: Buddhiprakash Sharma Vs Sanjeev Jain. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberS.A. No. 42 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Anil Mishra, Adv. and For Respondents: Prashant Sharma, Adv.
JudgesRohit Arya, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rule 27; Section 100; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14, 14A, 14A(1), 2(1), 2(e), 25B; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 12(1), 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(f), 12(4), 13(1)(f)
Judgement DateMarch 28, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Judgment:

Rohit Arya, J., (Gwalior Bench)

  1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 21-12-2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 54A/2013 by X Additional District Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior affirming the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 34A/2009 by V Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code whereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed as regards 'bona fide need of nonresidential accommodation' as envisaged under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The subject-matter of the suit is a shop situated at Bhonsle Ka Bada, in front of Mrignayan show room, Patankar Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') which was part of the property in dispute. The suit premises was purchased by the plaintiffs/respondents.

  2. As per the plaint allegations, the defendant/appellant was occupying the suit premises as tenant on rent at the rate of ` 2,000/- per month.

  3. There was a dispute between one Umaji Rao Bhonsle, predecessor-in-title of plaintiffs' (plaintiff) and one Ramji Das (defendant) in respect of the suit premises. During pendency of the suit, both had died and their legal representatives were substituted in that suit, i.e., 35A/2001. The said suit was decreed and the legal heirs of Ramji Das were directed to hand over the suit premises to the decree-holder vide the judgment and decree dated 13-9-2004.

  4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13-9-2004, defendant No. 3 therein had filed F.A. No. 14/2005, Dr. Om Prakash Gupta vs. Umaji Rao Bhonsle and others and an interim order was passed vide order dated 14-2-2005 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the following effect:

    Execution of the decree so far as it relates to possession shall remain stayed. Cost of the suit shall be deposited by the appellant within one month.

  5. On 13-9-2008, the plaintiffs herein had purchased the suit premises which was part of suit property referred to hereinabove from the legal heirs of Umaji Rao Bhonsale.

  6. On 15-6-2009, the plaintiffs' had filed a suit for eviction of the defendant in respect of the suit premises on the grounds enumerated in sections 12(1)(a) 'arrears of rent' and 12(1)(c) "nuisance" of the Act. Section 12(1)(f) "bona fide need of non-residential accommodation" for the need of plaintiff No. 1, Sanjeev Jain, Advocate claiming that he has no other suitable alternate accommodation in Gwalior city of his own for running his lawyer's office and at present he somehow accommodated himself in small chamber of his father Puttanlal Jain, Advocate situated at Jinsi Nala No. 1, Khetan Chambers (Ambasdor Hotel), Lashkar, Gwalior. The office was also shared by his elder brother, Sourab Jain.

  7. Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations that the suit premises was of the plaintiffs' ownership. It was averred that there was dispute as regards the suit premises between Umaji Rao Bhonsle and Ramji Das Gupta in the form of Civil Suit No. 35A/2001. Though the suit has been decreed in favour of Umaji Rao Bhonsie, further appeal being F.A. No. 14/2005 has been filed and the same is pending before this Court wherein vide interim order dated 14-2-2005 (supra) had been passed, as such, the alleged sale of the suit premises in favour of plaintiffs' by legal heirs of Umaji Rao Bhonsle during currency of interim order dated 14-2-2005 (supra) does not confer a valid title upon the plaintiffs' and, therefore, it was denied that plaintiffs' are ownership over the suit premises. Hence, the suit for bona fide need under section 12(1)(f) of the Act was not maintainable at their instance. It was further averred that in fact, the defendant was tenant of Umaji Rao Bhonsle and his legal heirs. It was also denied that the rent was ` 2,000/- per month instead rent was ` 25/- per month. It was also averred that the plaintiff No. 1 has other alternate suitable accommodation in the city of Gwalior where his need as canvassed for nonresidential accommodation of establishing advocate's office can be fulfilled.

  8. The trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings had framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon analysis of the evidence brought on record dismissed the suit primarily on the ground of pendency of F.A. No. 14/2005 before this Court and there was an interim order dated 14-2-2005 (supra) and, therefore, suit at the instance of plaintiffs' on the strength of sale deed dated 13-9-2008 was found to be not maintainable vide judgment and decree dated 15-9-2011.

  9. However, on 9-11-2011, the legal heirs of Umaji Rao Bhonsle (predecessor-in-title) had filed an application in F.A. No. 14/2005 (supra) for modification of the interim order dated 14-2-2005 (supra). A coordinate Bench of this Court considered and allowed the application vide order dated 1-2-2012 to the following effect:

    Keeping in view the averments made in the application, I.A. No. 503/12, the interim order dated 14-2-2005 passed by this Court stands modified to the effect that;

    The sale deed dated 13-9-2008 executed by the legal heirs of respondent No. 1, in favour of Smt. Sarika Jain, Sanjeev Jain and Smt. Prabha Sharma shall not affect the rights of the purchasers in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court dated 14-2-2005.

    The interim order passed by this Court dated 14-2-2005 shall stands modified accordingly.

    I.A. No. 503/12 stands disposed of.

  10. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 15-9-2011 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs' have preferred an appeal in the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior as Civil Appeal No. 24/2012. Along with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT