@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Smt. Nandita Dubey, J.—Shri A.D. Mishra, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the caveator.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed by IInd Additional District
Judge, Betul in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/2015 (Ashok and another v. Vimla Bai @ Vimal Bai & Others) arising out of judgment/decree dated
16.12.2014 passed by Vth Civil Judge Class-II Betul in Civil Suit No. 33- A/2013 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.
4. Present suit for eviction has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
5. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant stating that an agreement to sale has been executed by the land-lord in 21.11.1989 and on the
basis of which he was put in possession. Alternate plea of adverse possession was also raised on the ground of long possession over the suit
premises. It was also his contention that the suit premises is not required bona fide by the respondent/land-lord as there is an alternate
accommodation available to him.
6. Both the Courts below after considering the facts and evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence that has come on record, recorded
the concurrent finding to the effect that the suit premises was bonafidely required by the son of the plaintiff for his Kirana business. It was also the
finding of the Courts below that the agreement of sale dated 21.11.1989 did not create any title in favour of the appellant/tenant and the plea of
adverse possession was also found baseless holding that the possession of defendant/appellant was permissive and his status was as tenant only.
7. Even before this Court, learned Counsel for appellant failed to show any documents from which he could prove his title over the disputed
premises. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that since the agreement of sale was executed and the full amount was paid by him,
and he was put in possession his title can not be disputed.
8. It is settled law that the agreement of sale does not create title in favour of any person. It is evident from record that appellant/defendant has
made no efforts to get the sale deed registered, nor take any action in pursuance of the agreement to sale.
9. In view of the aforesaid findings, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below, so as to warrant
interference from this court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
10. The appellant/tenant is granted six months time from today to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff.
With the aforesaid direction this appeal is dismissed.
