F.A. No. 590 of 2001. Case: International Electricals and Another Vs Smt. Sunital Jain. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | F.A. No. 590 of 2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.K. Jain, Adv.and For Respondents: Ravi Ranjan, Adv. |
| Judges | U.C. Maheshwari, J. |
| Issue | Property Law |
| Citation | 2008 (2) MPLJ 118 |
| Judgement Date | November 22, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
The appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-8-2001 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 4-A/01 (Old No. 10-B/95) decreeing the suit of the respondent for possession of a part of the House No. 109 described in the map annexed with the plaint situated at Ganjipura Ward, Jabalpur along with the direction to pay the mesne profit @ Rs. 25/- per day from 3-1-1995.
The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants/defendants for mandatory injunction and possession in respect of House No. 109 (New No. 1259/3), Ganjipura Ward, Jabalpur. As per averment of the plaint such property was purchased by the respondent from its earlier owner vide sale-deed dated 10-8-1989. The husband of the respondent and the appellant No. 2 are the real brothers. The appellant No. 2 is carrying the business in the name and style of appellant No. 1. The appellant No. 2 was in need of some place to keep her business goods. Considering such need the respondent permitted her to use the disputed premises for the aforesaid purpose with the condition that she will vacate the same as per desire and requirement of the respondent. In pursuance of such condition the appellants were remained in occupation of the premises as the licensee of the respondent without any charge. The respondent was in need of such premises. Therefore by terminating such licence through notice-dated 6-10-1994 directed to vacate the premises within fifteen days. In spite its service the same was neither complied nor replied by the appellants. As per further pleadings the respondent also claimed mesne profit @ Rs. 25/- per day from 3-1-1995 till the delivery of possession.
In written statement, the appellant by admitting the title and ownership of the respondent over the property denied their relationship as licenser and licensee. They claimed to be the tenant of respondent. The alleged requirement of the respondent is also denied. As per further averments she was inducted as tenant in such premises @ Rs. 500/- p.m. in the year 1994 for non-residential purpose, since then she is using the premises as godown for keeping her business goods. The rent of such premises was paid to the respondent regularly for which the receipt was never given to her. Keeping in view the relation with the respondent. Initially appellant No. 2 could not insist her to give such receipts but when respondent refused to give the same then she filed an application dated 11 -10-1994 before the Rent Controlling Authority stating that respondent did not receive the rent @ 500/- p.m. since 1-5-1994 to 30-9-1994. The same was registered as R. C. A. No. 25-A/90/3/93-94. The notice of such proceeding was issued to the respondent in spite its service she did not appear, on which after holding the appellant to be the tenant of the respondent in such premises they were directed to deposit the outstanding rent by order dated 18.4.95. As per averments the copy of such order and the challan by which the rent was deposited are annexed with the written statement. Accordingly he claimed to be the tenant of respondent in such premises and not the licensee. The suit is not maintainable unless the same is filed under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. The possession of the appellants as tenant is protected under the law.
In view of the pleadings of the parties after framing the issues the evidence was recorded. On appreciation by holding the appellants to be a licensee of the respondent in such premises, the decree for possession and mesne profit as mentioned above has been passed against them. The same is under challenge in this appeal.
Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment saying that it was not a case of licence...
To continue reading
Request your trial