Madhya Pradesh High Court
Soya Beg vs Smt Preeti on 13 March, 2019
1 SA No.38/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SA No.38/2019
Soyab Beg & another Vs. Smt. Preeti & another
Indore, Dated:13.03.2019
Shri O.P.Sharma, learned counsel for appellants.
Shri.R.K.Samdani, learned counsel for respondents.
Heard on admission.
By this second appeal u/S.100 of the CPC the tenants have challenged the concurrent judgment of the two courts below. Trial court by the judgment dated 5/2/2018 had decreed the suit for eviction and the first appellate court by the judgment dated 29/11/2018 by dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed the suit for eviction with the plea that they had purchased the suit house from its earlier owner Omprakash by the registered sale deed dated 11/9/2006 and in the ground floor of the suit house, Shop No.6 was given to the appellant No.1 on rent on 8/7/2011 wherein the appellant No.1 was doing the business of Band by the name Diamond Band and the appellant No.2 was father of the appellant No.1. Appellant No.2 being blind was not able to do business and appellant No.1 alone was doing the business in the suit shop. It was alleged that no rent was paid by the appellant No.1 from 1/8/2011 till 31/07/2015, hence the rent from 36 months since prior to the filing of the suit was claimed. The eviction was also sought on the ground of bona-fide need of 2 SA No.38/2019 starting the business with the plea that Anmol, the son of the respondent No.1 was major and unemployed, therefore, the respondent along with Anmol wanted to start the garment business, hence the notice for eviction was given and the suit was filed.
The appellant No.1 by filing the written statement had denied that he was doing the business in the name of Diamond Band and also had raised the plea that on the date of alleged creation of tenancy on 8/7/2011 he was minor, hence his signature on the rent agreement is of no consequence. The appellant No.2 by filing the written statement had taken the plea that the suit shop was taken on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- in 2006 and the rent of Rs.1500/- was agreed after three years and Rs.three lakhs were given to the father-in-law of the respondent No.1 as advance.
The trial court had found that the landlord tenant relationship exists between the parties and the suit shop was let out for monthly rent of Rs.4773/-. It was also proved that the respondents were in bona-fide need of the suit shop and they had no other alternative suitable accommodation to satisfy the said need. It was also found proved that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent from 1/8/2011 till 31/7/2015. Accordingly, on the basis of these findings, the decree of eviction was passed with further decree in favour of the respondents directing the appellants to pay the rent of Rs.1,71,828/- for the period of three years. The first appellate court has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court.
3 SA No.38/2019Learned counsel for appellant submits that the courts below have committed an error in recording the finding relating to the age of the appellant No.1 and that the appellant No.1 was minor on the date of the execution of the rent agreement Ex.P/2 and his age was manipulated therein.
Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that both the courts below have elaborately examined the oral as well as the documentary evidence in this regard. The plea of the appellant that the appellant No.1 was aged about 17 years at the time of execution of the agreement Ex.P/2 has duly been considered and it has been found that the appellant No.1 was not a minor at the time of execution of the agreement. The findings so recorded by the two courts below are pure findings of fact. The appellant had not filed any birth certificate to prove the age of the appellant No.1. The plea of the appellant that he had given Rs.three lakhs advance has also remained unproved. The courts below have noted the admission of the appellants that after filing of the suit they had not deposited the rent. In this back ground the trial court had rightly struck off the defence of the appellants. The courts below have also recorded concurrent finding of fact that the respondents are in bona- fide need of the suit premises and they do not have any other alternative suitable accommodation in the town concerned to satisfy the need. Such a concurrent finding recorded by the two courts below is neither erroneous nor perverse. Hence, no error has been committed by the 4 SA No.38/2019 courts below in decreeing the suit.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Kalyan Singh Vs. Ramswaroop and another 1996 JLJ 247 has held that the concurrent finding of the two courts below relating to landlord tenant relationship is unassailable. This court also in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Vs. Naresh & another 2002 (1) MPACJ 253 in a case where defence of tenant was struck off and the plea of bona-fide need was raised and there was nothing to rebut either in the pleading or in evidence held that the ground of bona-fide need was rightly proved.
Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of S.K. Bhikan Vs. Mehamoodabee & Ors. AIR 2017 SC 1243 and in the matter of M.B. Ramesh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. K.M.Veeraje Urs (Dead) by L.Rs & Ors. 2013 (5) MPHT 239(SC) wherein it has been held that interpretation of a document constitutes a substantial question of law, but in the present case no such issue of interpretation of document is involved. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Kanailal & Ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Singh & Ors.2018 (1) SCCD 113 (SC) wherein it has been held that while dismissing the second appeal, the High Court must give reasons. There is no dispute to this proposition. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Rohini Prasad & Ors. Vs. Kasturchand & another 2000 (4) MPHT 5 wherein it has been held that the High Court can interfere and upset the finding if the first appellate court has misread the evidence leading to 5 SA No.38/2019 miscarriage of justice, but in the present case concurrent finding of fact have been recorded by the two courts below. He has also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Sheshambal (D) through L.Rs. Vs. M/s.Chelur Corporation Chelur Buildings & Ors. 2010 SAR(Civil) 283 wherein it has been held that the subsequent development must be taken into consideration, but in the present case no relevant subsequent development had taken place.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law which is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 2019.03.20 17:44:47 +05'30'