- (1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises in the following circumstances -
(2.) APPELLANTS purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 31st March, 1992 from the original owner Mr. A.L Agate. The Respondents were the tenants of the suit premises under the original owner. The Appellants asked the Respondents to start paying rent to them w.e.f. 1.4.1992 but the rent was not paid. The Appellants filed a suit for eviction against the Respondents since they failed to vacate the premises inspite of service of notice to quit. Eviction of the Respondents was sought on the grounds (a) non -payment of rent (b) bona fide requirement for personal use of the landlord and (3) illegal encroachment by the tenant on the other property belonging to the landlord. The suit was contested and following issues came to be raised - 2. (a) Whether the Plaintiff are owners and landlords of the suit land ? (b) Whether the Defendants are tenant @ Rs. 45/ - per month to the suit land as shown in the plaint map and the Defendants are tenant of the Plaintiffs ? Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the vacant possession of the suit land due to notice of demand and the tenancy determined ? 3. (a) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the suit land for the fulfilment of their genuine and bonafide need for residence ? (b) If yes then the Plaintiffs have no other suitable residential accommodation/premises within the city of Jabalpur ? 4. WHETHER the Plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the suit land as the Defendants encroached on additional suit land ? Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Rs. 559.50 from the Defendants towards arrears of rent ?.............J. 5. RELIEF and costs. 6. (a) Whether the Defendants are in possession in their own right on suit land? (b) If yes, whether the Defendants are entitled for grant of relief of declaration against the Plaintiffs that they have no right on the suit land ? Whether the Defendants counter claim has been legally and properly valued and the suit is maintainable ?
(3.) THE trial court on the basis of evidence led before it recorded a finding that the Appellants were the owners and the landlords of the suit premises and that they were entitled to the decree of eviction on all the three counts. The trial court accordingly passed a decree against the Respondents directing the Respondents -tenants to handover the possession of the premises, including the place under their illegal encroachment, to the Appellants and to pay an amount of Rs. 559.50 as arrears and rent at the rate of Rs. 45/ - per month till the date of the handing over of possession. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was appealed by the tenants -respondents in the Court of the Ninth Additional Judge, District Court, Jabalpur. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the fact recorded by the trial court and taking note of the admissions of the Defendant's witnesses, dismissed the appeal confirming the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was challenged in the High Court in second appeals. The following three "substantial" questions of law were formulated by the High Court - (a) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court are in accordance with law even when it has not considered the material aspects regarding the execution of Ex.D -1, D -2, D -3 and P -13 ? (b) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case 'the Agates' had withdrawn the powers from the power of attorney holder under Ex.P -13 or it continued to have its own effect and force despite execution of P -13 ? (c) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case by agreement dated 21.12.91 executed by the power of attorney of the first owner the tenancy between the owner i.e. Shri Agate and the Defendants came to an end ? Ultimately after a lengthy discussion of all the questions, High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the two Courts below.;