First Appeal No. 512/2003. Case: Hafizulla Vs Puran Chand Jain and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 512/2003
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Pranay Verma, Advocate
JudgesRajendra Menon, Actg. C.J. and Anurag Shrivastava, J.
IssueLimitation Act, 1963 - Section 27; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12(1), 12(1)(f); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 111(d)
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


Anurag Shrivastava, J.

  1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 passed by XV Additional District Judge, in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2002, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground its maintainability and res-judicata.

  2. The appellant/plaintiff is co-owner of suit house bearing Nos. 667, 667/1 to 667/3 situated at Kotwali ward, Jabalpur known as "Kudrat Manzil" which is given on rent to Late Shri Sheikhar Chand Jain by registered lease deed dated 01.05.1968 for ten years.

  3. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff and co-owner Hamida Bi had instituted a Civil Suit No. 147-A/1988 against the original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain for eviction on various grounds under Section 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. During the pendency of the Civil Suit No. 147-A/1988 the defendant Sheikhar Chand Jain had died. His wife Smt. Champa Bai and his son Puran Chand Jain and Inder Kumar Jain were brought on record as legal heirs. In the above suit the IX Civil Judge Class-II vide judgment dated 30.07.1991 had found bonafide need of the plaintiff Hafizulla established for his profession of Advocate under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit for eviction at the instance of two co-landlords was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the appellants have filed First Civil Appeal before XII ADJ, registered as Civil Appeal No. 61-A/1995, which was dismissed on 28.11.1995. Thereafter, the Second Appeal No. 813/1995 was filed by plaintiff, in which the high court had also upheld the bonafide need of the appellants but dismissed the appeal on the ground that the defendant Inder Kumar Jain had purchased the undivided share of Smt. Sona Bi and Smt. Begum Bi by sale deeds dated 02.02.1982 and 20.09.1982 and have become the co-owner of the property. His share qua sole owner has not been specified. Therefore, he cannot be evicted at the instance of other co-owners without partition of the property.

  4. It is further pleaded by plaintiff that the tenancy of defendants has been terminated and it is found proved that the suit house is bonafidely required by the plaintiff for his profession of Advocate, therefore, the possession of defendants become unauthorized in the suit house. The suit house is situated in market place. The market value of house is at present not less than Twenty Five lacs and rental value is not less than Fifteen Thousand per month. Therefore, plaintiff prayed for decree of vacant possession of the suit house on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, as found proved in Second Appeal No. 813/1995 by this Court, alongwith the decree of mesne profit @ Rs. 100/- per day from the date of decree till vacant possession handed over by defendants to plaintiff.

  5. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is denied that the suit house is a dwelling house. It is pleaded that the suit house belongs to Barkatulla and his brother Shamsuddin. Later on house was partitioned in 1951, in which the half north part of the suit house came in share of Barkatullah and remaining south part was allocated to Shamsuddin. After the death of Shamsuddin, his son Jalaluddin inherited his share in suit house and later on, he had gifted his share to his wife Begam Bi by executing Tamleefnama dated 17.04.1974 with the consent of Barkatullah. Thus, Begam Bi was the owner of half south portion of the house.

  6. It is averred by the defendant that Barkatulla, Amina Bi, Jalaluddin and Hamida Bi had let out the suit house to Sheikhar Chand Jain. A Civil Suit No. 147-A/1988 has been instituted against the original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain for eviction on various grounds under Section 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. During pendency of the suit, original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain died and his LRs were brought on record as successor tenants. One of LRs of Sheikhar Chand Jain, his son Inder Kumar Jain had purchased the share of Smt. Begam Bi vide order sale deed dated 03.02.1982 and share of Smt. Sona Bi vide sale deed dated 20.09.1982 in suit house. It is claimed that by virtue of these sale deeds, Inder Kumar Jain became the co-owner of the suit house and retains possession in the suit house as co-owner. Inder Kumar Jain had been impleaded in Civil Suit No. 147-A/1998 as purchaser of share of co-owner not as a LRs of deceased Sheikhar Chand Jain.

  7. The defendant has admitted that Civil Suit No...

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