Second Appeal No. 682 of 2003. Case: Mohammad Shafi-Ul-Haq Vs Smt. Bilkees Bano and Others. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 682 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.K. Saxena with Anwar Khan, Advs. And For Respondents: R.N. Gupta, Adv. |
| Judges | Smt. S. R. Waghmare, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100; Delhi Rent Act, 1995 - Section 14(1)(e); Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 12(1)(e), 12(1)(f), 2(e) |
| Citation | 2012 (3) JLJ 21 |
| Judgement Date | June 22, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Smt. S. R. Waghmare, J.
-
This appeal has been filed under section 100 of the CPC by the landlord-plaintiff being aggrieved by judgment dated 16.7.2003 passed by XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Regular Appeal No. 27-A/ 2003 arising out of Civil Suit No. 546-A/1995 which decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 18.2.2002 passed by III Civil Judge, Class II, Indore. Brief facts of the case are that the defendants were the tenants in house No. 1 Juna Risala, Indore belonging to plaintiff Mohd. Shafi-Ul-Haq jointly with his brother Majhar-Ul-Haq. It is an admitted fact that in the East of the house was a road, West of the house was a gali, in the North a house No. 1/1, Juna Risala, Indore and the South part was occupied by tenant Smt. Haneefa. The tenant accommodation consisted of one room on the ground floor, on the South side one platform, one thatch and an open courtyard and the rent was Rs. 6/- per month. The plaintiff contented that there was a partition between the brothers on 20.5.1993 and a part of the house given to the widow of Majhar-Ul-Haq along with his children. The disputed accommodation in the present appeal came to the share of the plaintiff and he was the owner ever since. The disputed premises were taken on rent by one Abdul Karim and after his death the defendants occupied the same by stepping into his shoes as tenants. The defendants were irregular in payment of the rent. Whereas the plaintiff complained that he had bona fide need of the tenanted premises from the tenant Sairabi as well as others, since his wife was ailing for last 8-10 months and needed medical treatment at Indore. His elder son Mohd. Anwar, who took up the work of contractor and he also wanted to settle at Indore and his another son Israr was an educated unemployed man and wanted to settle at Indore and start business of motor rewinding etc. Hence, they wanted to settle at Indore along with 11 other members of his family and he wanted to reside in the disputed house and he had also filed a suit for eviction against the tenant Haneefa Bi since he needed three rooms, three platforms and another thatch. Counsel for the appellant has candidly admitted that an earlier suit for eviction has been filed jointly with the brother of the appellant in the year 1988 and dismissed in the year 1992. In the present appeal suit was filed by the appellant alone afresh on 26.7.1995; considering the fact that they were using only one room and platform availed in the house at Indore the trial Court decreed the suit and directed to grant of possession to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of judgment and mesne profits to be fixed Rs. 6/- per month to be paid as rent. Being aggrieved the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate Court which reversed the findings and dismissed the suit and hence the present second appeal filed by the landlord-plaintiff.
-
The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:
(a) Whether the lower appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court acted with perversity?
(b) Whether the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court that the suit is barred by res judicata is sustainable in law?
(c) Whether the plaintiff-appellant was able to establish the ground for...
To continue reading
Request your trial