ABDUL HAKIM Vs. ANWAR JEHAN BEGUM
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ANWAR JEHAN BEGUM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant-tenant against whom a decree for his eviction from the suit premises has been passed by the two Courts below.
(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff-landlord for eviction of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises has been decreed both under clauses (a) and (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Facts relevant for purposes of this appeal may shortly be stated as follows: The defendant-appellant was inducted into the suit premises as a tenant by Faizul Haq, the father of the plaintiff, on or about 1-10-1955 on monthly rent of Rs. 15. The tenancy was according to the English calendar month beginning with the 1st day of the month and ending with the month of tenancy. On 14-3-1963 Faizul Haq, by a registered deed of sale, transferred the suit premises to his daughter, the present plaintiff. The present plaintiff instituted a suit on 17-11-1965 for eviction of the defendant-tenant both under clause (a) as well as under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. It was, inter alia, alleged that the defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 30 9-1965 and that he had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the said arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent had been served on him by the plaintiff-landlord. As the suit is succeeding under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, I need not refer to the allegations relevant for the purpose of a decree under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act.
The defence of the defendant appellant was that he was not in arrears of rent. It was alleged that he had made a tender of Rs. 195 in respect of the rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 31-8-1964, which tender of rent was wrongly refused by the plaintiff-landlord. It was, therefore, contended that as the defendant-tenant was not a defaulter, no notice of demand could be served on him within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. In the alternative, it was contended that it had been agreed between him and the then landlord Faizul Haq that the liability of Faizul Haq to Mohsin Ali Asgar Ali amounting to Rs. 450 shall be undertaken by the defendant- tenant on condition that the amount so paid by him to Mohsin Ali Asgar Ali on behalf of Faizul Haq shall be adjusted towards the future rent of the suit premises. It was also alleged that the notice of demand had not been duly served on him, nor was the notice terminating his tenancy duly served on him.
(3.) BOTH the Courts below have rejected all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit.
It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the defendant- tenant appellant that the notices were not duly served on him. The question has been discussed by the learned District Judge in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his judgment and he has, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant was duly served with a notice of ejectment which he had refused to accept. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact based on an appreciation of the evidence on record and no reasons are forthcoming why that finding should be interfered with in a second appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.