Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprasad vs Satish on 14 September, 2015
1
S.A. No.545/2014
14.9.2015
Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent decree of eviction passed by the two courts below. The trial Court by the judgment dated 18.2.2012 had decreed the suit for eviction being C.S. No.35-A/11 filed by the respondent and the first appellate court by the judgment dated 6.9.2014 by dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.61/A/14 has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
In brief, the respondent had filed the suit for eviction under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act raising the plea that the suit house was purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.2003 from its earlier owner Omprakash and symbolic possession was received, since the appellant was in possession of the suit premises as tenant of the earlier owner. the notice dated 7.1.2004 was sent to the appellant and thereafter vide notice dated 7.9.2005, the tenancy was terminated and eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent, denial of title and 2 bonafide need.
The suit was opposed by the appellant admitting the original owner Omprakash as landlord but raising the plea that the respondent had not filed any document of title. The bonafide need was also denied and the other grounds of eviction were opposed.
Initially the suit was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 29.1.2009 and the first appeal was also dismissed by order dated 30.9.2009 but in Second Appeal by order dated 22.7.2010 this Court had set aside the orders of the courts below and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for deciding the suit afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. Thereafter the trial Court by the judgment dated 18.2.2012 had decreed the suit on the ground of bonafide need for residence by rejecting the ground of eviction of arrears of rent and denial of title. The first appellate court has affirmed the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the courts below had recorded the findings in favour of the appellant in the earlier round of litigation while dismissing the suit which are binding, and that the directions issued by this Court while reminding the matter have not been complied with.
3Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that both the courts below have elaborately dealt with the oral as well as the documentary evidence. While considering the bona fide need for residence, it has been found that the respondent is residing with his family members in Devshri lodge, which is a commercial premises. The appellant could not establish that the respondent has any alternate suitable accommodation to satisfy the need. The bonafide need for residence is duly proved in the matter and the findings which have been recorded by the two courts below are supported by the evidence on record. That apart, the first appellate court has also found that the ground of eviction for non payment of rent as also for denial of title was also proved but since no cross- appeal or cross-objections were filed by the respondent, therefore, the decree of eviction has not been passed on those ground. This court while remanding the matter back by the order dated 22.7.2010, had permitted the respondent to file the document of derivative title and while setting aside the judgments of the courts below, had further permitted the respondent to rectify the defect of putting his signature on the pleading and verification. On remand the courts below have duly complied with the direction issued by this Court and counsel for the appellant is not right in contending that the 4 courts below have travelled beyond the direction of this Court.
The reliance placed upon by counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rukhmanand Vs. Dinbandhu & Others, reported in 1971 JLJ Short Note 159 and in the matter of Smt. Ramabai Vs. Harbilas reported in 1996(I) MPJR 390, is misconceived since those judgments are distinguishable on their own facts and are not applicable in the facts of the present case.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law requiring consideration by this Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has prayed for time to vacate the suit premises.
Considering the entire circumstances of the case and taking note of the use to which the suit premises has been put to, the appellant is granted time to vacate the suit premises up to 31.3.2016 on the following conditions :-
(1) The appellant will furnish an undertaking before the trial Court within 4 weeks from today stating that he will handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 31.3.2016. (2) The appellant will comply with the money part of the 5 decree within 6 weeks from today.
(3) The appellant will continue to deposit the rent of the suit premises on or before 7th of each month. (4) The appellant will not create any third party right on the suit premises in the meanwhile.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok