AJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. HUJEFA
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AJAY KUMAR JAIN
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava,J. -
(1.) This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2018 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.103A/2016, which was filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2016 passed by Third Additional Judge, Guna to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-2, Guna in Civil Suit No. 104A/2009.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/ respondents owned and possessed the disputed house as per map annexed with the plaint, which was let out to defendants/ appellants as per rent deed dated 1.3.1997. The defendants-tenant have not paid the rent from May 2009 onwards. The disputed house is in dilapidated condition and there was apprehension of unhappening, therefore, the defendant-tenants were requested to vacate the disputed house but thereafter the defendants-tenant did not vacate the disputed house. The disputed house was needed to the plaintiffs/landlord for running their business and for which a notice was served upon the defendants-tenant by the plaintiffs-landlord through their counsel for terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 30.6.2009 and handing over the vacant possession of the disputed property. Therefore, cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs on 30.6.2009. The written statement was filed by the defendantstenant and the averments pleaded in the plaint were denied.
(3.) On the basis of aforesaid pleadings of the parties issues were framed and trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, granted the decree in favour of plaintiffs-landlord under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and thereafter First Appellate Court has passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs-landlord under Section 12(1)(f) as well as under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants-tenant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.