Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsiya Namdeo vs Mathura Prasad Namdeo on 1 December, 2014
1
S.A.No.378/2008
Second Appeal No.378/2008
01.12.2014
Shri A.Usmani, learned counsel for appellant. Heard on admission.
This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.6-A/2007 by 5th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Amarpatan, Satna affirming judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.84-A/2006 by Civil Judge Class-II, Amarpatan.
An action for eviction of defendant was brought by the plaintiff from the house constructed over 15x30 part of Khasra No.263/6 Mouza Umrahi Bihariram on the plea that vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1979 he purchased 6100 sq.ft. of Khasra No.263/6 from Ramchandra Son of Bhagwat Prasad. A house was got constructed over 15.6x75 feet after due sanction dated 21.10.1986 from Nagar Panchayat, Amarpatan. That, vide sale deeds dated 17.12.1987, 17.09.1993 and 24.10.2002 he sold 600 sq.ft., 675 sq.ft, 331 sq.ft. and 450 sq.ft. to respective person and on remaining 4045 sq.ft. he got the suit house constructed which was let out to the defendant (who happens to be his brother in law) in 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.100. That till June 2004 the rent was paid; however, thereafter the rent was not paid. And in response to notice to eviction the defendant claimed to have purchased the land and got the house constructed.
Defendant denied plaintiff's contention, contending inter alia that the suit house was constructed in 1990 over a plot purchased 2 S.A.No.378/2008 by him from the plaintiff for Rs.2200/-; however because of the close relationship formal sale deed was not executed, but entire expenses were meted out by the defendant being the owner of the suit property. It was contended (as borne out from the evidence) that till the suit house was constructed, the defendant who shifted to Amarpatan lived as tenant in the plaintiff's existing house, but after the construction of suit house in 1990 he shifted in the said house.
Parties led evidence.
Trial Court on the basis of the material evidence on record found that the plaintiff failed to establish landlord tenant relationship; consequently, non-suited the plaintiff recording the findings :
9& --- bl lEcU/k eas iz0ih01 yxk;r iz0ih0 44 ds nLrkostksads ifj'khyu ls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd mHk; i{k ds e/; fdjk;snkjh dk l`tu gqvk gSA fdjk;s ds laEcU/k esa dksbZ jlhn gS ,slk Hkh izdV ugha gksrk gS A fookfnr edkudh prqlhZek D;k gS ;g oknh ds }kjk uk rks vius vfHkopuksa esa Li"V fd;k x;k gS uk gh oknh }kjk izLrqr vuqyXu ^^v^^ ds uD'kk esa fd;k x;k gs A iz0ih01 yxk;r iz0ih0 44 ds nLrkost fookfnr edku ls lEcfU/kr gS ,slk Hkh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS A 10& --- oknh lkf{k;ksa esa fdlh lk{kh us ;g ugha crk;k gS fd muds lkeus oknh ,oa izfroknh ds e/; fdjk;snkjh dk l`tu gqvk vkSj ;g Hkh ugha crk;k gS fd izfroknh }kjk oknh dks muds lkeus fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;kA fygktk ekfyd edku 3 S.A.No.378/2008 rFkk fdjk;snkj ds lECkU/k mHk; i{k ds e/; LFkkfir gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrs gS A 12& oknh ds vfHkopuksa rFkk dFkuksa ls ;g iwjh rjg ls Li"V gS fd fookfnr edku esa izfroknh eFkqjk izlkn dCtk n[ky fd, gS A Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/k0 dh /kkjk 110 ds eqrkfcd dCtk LokfeRo dk izek.k gksrk gS A vU;Fkk lkfcr djus dk Hkkj ml i{k ij gS tks ;g dgrk gS fd dCtk j[kus okyk O;fDr dCtk okys Hkkx dk Hkwfe Lokeh ugha gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh ds }kjk fookfnr edku ij vius oS/k LoRo dks fof/kor izekf.kr ugha fd;k tk ldk gS A oknh o izfroknh ds e/; fdjk;snkjh dk l`tu gqvk ;g Hkh izHkkf.kr ugha gqvk gS fygktk oknh izfroknh ls fookfnr edku dk fjDr vkf/kiR; ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A --- ** The Appellate Court affirmed the findings in the following terms :
**14& oknh us viuk nkok ckor~ csn[kyh nks vk/kkjksa ij is'k fd;k gS A izFke ;g fd izfroknh uknsgj fdjk;snkj gS A f}rh; ;g fd oknh Lo;a ls fjgkblh okys ekdku dh vko';drk gS A ijarq oknh us ;g Li"V ugha fd mlds ikl fdjk;s okys ekdku ds vykok vU; dksbZ fjgkbZlh ekdku gS vFkok ughaA bl izdkj ln~Hkkoh vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij oknh fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A tgka rd ckdk'k fdjk;k dk iz'u gS A pwafd mHk;i{kdkjksa ds e/; ekdku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha gS blfy, cdk;k dk dksbZ iz'u iSnk ugha gksrk o uknsgj fdjk;snkj gksus ds vk/kkj ij oknh izfroknh ls mDr fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A ekeys 4 S.A.No.378/2008 esa oknh }kjk izLrqr uksfV'k iz0ih0 35 izfr dks izsf"kr dh xbZ gS mlds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd mDr uksfV'k /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼,½ lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fof/kor ugha nh xbZ A bl izdkj ftu vk/kkjksa ij oknh us izfroknh dh csn[kyh pkgh gS og izkI; ugha gS o og oknxzLr ekdku dk dCtk rFkk e/;orhZ ykHk izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA** Though it is contended on behalf of plaintiff that both the Courts misconstrued the pleadings and the evidence led as if the eviction is being sought only in contextual relationship as landlord and tenant, whereas, the eviction was sought as an owner of the suit property. These contentions are noted and rejected at the outset.
The suit as evident from its title was for eviction and arrears of rent :"nkok ckor r[kfy;k edku ,oa fyk;s tkus cdk;k fdjk;k " Furthermore, the relief sought being for arrears of rent, eviction and mesne profit, incumbent it was upon the plaintiff to have establish landlord-tenant relationship.
In view whereof, concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts cannot be faulted with.
Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand