F.A. No. 285 of 2002. Case: Bhagwandas (since deceased) now by LRs. and Smt. Meera Bai and Others Vs Ashok Kumar. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | F.A. No. 285 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.K. Jain, Adv. and For Respondents: Avinash Zargar, Adv. |
| Judges | A.K. Shrivastava, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 12(1)(c), 13(1); Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 248 |
| Citation | 2013 (1) MPLJ 571 |
| Judgement Date | November 22, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
-
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-6-2002 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Suit No. 8-A/1994 decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent for eviction, this first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant. In brief the case of plaintiff/respondent is that the appellant/defendant is a tenant @ ` 1250/- of a shop (non-residential accommodation) the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject-matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendant/appellant is denying his ownership although he is his tenant and hence, it made a cause for him to file the suit for eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act").
-
The defendant/appellant filed written-statement and denied the plaint averments. According to the defendant, a notice under section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "the Code") has been received by him from Tehsildar that he is an encroacher upon the suit land and therefore, according to him it is a matter of inquiry to whom the rent is to be paid.
-
The learned trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and denial in written statement, framed the necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
-
In this manner, this first appeal has been filed by the defendant. During the pendency of this first appeal, defendant Bhagwan died and his L.Rs have been brought on record.
-
The contention of Shri Jain, learned counsel for the appellants is that because the tenant/appellant received a notice under section 248 of the Code from the Tehsildar mentioning therein that he is a trespasser upon the government land, therefore, he was in dilemma and in these facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the denial of title of the plaintiff is not bona fide. Learned counsel submits that defendant never set up the title of the disputed property in him or in any third person and if that would be the position, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375 which has been relied by a single Bench of this Court in Dayal Das (dead) through L.Rs. Smt. Kamla Chenani and others vs. Rajendra Prasad Gautam, 2012 (2) MPLJ 460 the eviction suit cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial