RAMU SINGH TOMAR & ANR. Vs SMT. BHURI BAI
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
1205 of 2016
Hon'ble Bench
Anjuli Palo, Judge
Advocates
Shri P.R. Bhave, Devdatt Bhave, Grishm Jain
Acts Referred
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100, Section 100, Order 2Rule 2 - Second appeal - Second appeal
- Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2016 passed by III ADJ, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.142/16 affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2016 passed by the 5th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in RCS No.334-A/12.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs, filed Civil Suit No.334-A/12 for eviction of appellant/defendant under Section 12 (1)(a)(c) and (e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for arrears of rent, bonafide residential need and nuisance relating to disputed House No. E-8/318, Trilanga Cooperative Society, Arera Colony, Trilochan Nagar, Bhopal. The plaintiffs/respondents purchased the suit house from its previous owner Vinod Kumar Mishra vide registered sale deed dated 22.02.2011. Which he previously purchased from Trilanga Cooperative Housing Society by a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1987. The disputed house was given to the appellant/defendant on rent @ Rs.5000/- per month. After the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, defendant became tenant of the plaintiffs/respondents from 22.2.2011. On 18.6.2011 the plaintiffs/respondents claimed arrears of rent from the appellant/defendant. The defendant denied land lord and tenant relationship between them and submitted that he was the tenant of one K.V. Goswami @ Rs.2200/- per month.
3. The defendant/appellant filed his written statement inter-alia denying the plaint allegations and stated that Vinod Kumar Mishra was the owner of the suit property. Hence, he cannot become the tenant of the plaintiffs/respondents. The appellant/defendant also filed a counter claim for declaration to protect his existing possession from the plaintiffs/respondents. The appellant submitted that Ratanlal Sharma was the true owner and K.V. Goswami was managing the suit house.
5. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 21.3.2016 dismissed the appellant''s counter claim and decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs on the grounds that the registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The documents filed by the plaintiffs/respondents proved that Vinod Kumar Mishra was the previous owner of the disputed property. The defendant/appellant failed to prove that the suit property was purchased by Ratanlal Sharma. On the basis of unrebutted documents i.e. registered sale deed Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs/respondents are the registered owner of the disputed property and the appellant/defendant became their tenant. The appellant/defendant failed to prove that he was the tenant of Ratanlal Sharma or K.V. Goswami. No document has been filed by the appellant for rebuttal of the ownership of the plaintiffs.
5. The learned trial Court also found that the appellant/defendant is not entitled for any declaration. The Court held that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property, therefore, no relief is granted by the learned trial Court for protecting existing possession of the appellant/defendant on the suit house.
6. The learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant against the aforesaid findings of the learned trial Court.
7. The appellant/defendant challenged the aforesaid findings on the grounds that no oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the respondents/plaintiffs to prove that the appellant was their tenant @ Rs.5000/- per month, without following the proper procedure for fixation of rent under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961. Hence the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. Both the courts below illegally held that the claim was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The appellant prayed that the judgment passed by the Courts below be set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff vehemently opposes the contentions of the appellant/defendant.
9. On perusal of the records, this court found that the issue regarding the amount of rent has been decided by the learned trial Court on 13.8.2013 and fixed the rent as Rs.5000/- per month. Even then the defendant/appellant failed to deposit the regular rent in the court below. It is also found that the appellant/defendant has filed a review petition against the order of the learned trial Court dated 13.8.2013. The review petition was also dismissed on 20th September, 2013. Direction issued by the learned trial Court against the appellant/defendant under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1961 was not challenged by the appellant/defendant.
10. The learned trial Court while analysing on issue No.10 with proper ground has held that the counter claim filed by the appellant/defendant is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.
11. This Court has also found that there have been concurrent findings of the Courts below against the appellant. In the opinion of this Court both the Courts below have recorded the pure findings of fact, after proper appreciation of the entire facts available on records then decreed the suit. As such the Courts below are fully justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. Therefore, under Section 100 of CPC no interference is called for.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
13. No order as to costs.
