ABDUL SAMAD Vs. KHEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 15/2005, whereby the judgment dated 29-9-2004 passed by Xlth Civil Judge Class, I Indore in Civil Suit No. 139-A/2003, whereby suit filed by the appellants for eviction of respondent under section 12(l)(a) and (f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "the Act") was dismissed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-"(a) Whether the Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants?

(3.) Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for eviction on 2-11-1996 alleging that appellant No. 1 and his brother deceased Abdul Majid, whose LRs are appellants No. 2 to 11 are the owner of a house bearing Municipal No. 236/1 Naya Pura, Indore. In the suit it was alleged that appellant No. 1 is also the Power of Attorney of appellants No. 2 to 11 and the suit was filed by the appellants, which is signed by the appellant No. 1 in his individual capacity as well as Power of Attorney for rest of the appellants. In the suit it was alleged that respondent is tenant in the suit accommodation, which is shop @ Rs. 125/- per month. It was alleged that respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-1-1996, which has not been paid in spite of notice dated 25-5-1996, which was duly served. It was alleged that appellants requires the suit accommodation for the business of the son of appellant No. 1, who is unemployed. It is submitted that need of the appellants is bona fide and for that no alternate suit accommodation is available in the city of Indore. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the respondent under section 12(l)(a) and (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement, wherein the tenancy was not denied, however, it was denied that the respondent is the defaulter. It was also denied that appellant No. 1 is owner of the suit accommodation. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit against which the appeal was filed. During pendency of the appeal an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code was filed on 13-12-2005 along with certain documents, which was dismissed on 29-9-2006 and thereafter the appeal was also dismissed, hence this appeal.