RAMGOPAL KANHAIYALAL Vs. DINANATH GYASILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by defendant/tenants against a decree for eviction granted under Sections 12(1)(a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff/respondents instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from M/s Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal, a partnership firm with the averments that the suit shop is owned by Smt. Saraswati Bai (plaintiff No. 2) which is occupied by the defendant as a tenant @ Rs. 180 per month under an oral tenancy w.e.f. 1-2- 1974. The plaintiff No. 2 is not well educated so she authorised plaintiff No. 1 for looking after her property and realization of rent. The defendant was inducted into the suit shop by the plaintiff No. 1 in the aforesaid capacity. It is stated in the plaint that accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 is also a landlord of the defendant and has been impleaded as a plaintiff in order to avoid legal complications. The property devolved upon plaintiff No. 2 due to death of Vinod Kumar. The plaintiff No. 2 became an exclusive owner of the suit shop on account of being mother of Vinod Kumar who died during his Bachelorhood on 8-8-1973. It was further stated in the plaint that the rent was due from 1-2-1974. However, keeping in view the limitation, the plaintiff claimed the rent for a period of preceding three years and two months amounting to Rs. 6660/-. The defendant paid Rs. 1800/- towards rent on 29-6- 1974 and did not pay the balance amount in respect of demand notice dated 11- 11-1978. The defendant has kept the suit premises locked and closed from time quite prior to March, 1978 and a decree on ground under Section 12(1)(d) was claimed. Since the same has been denied and no substantial question of law is framed on this point, I do not feel it apt to further discuss with respect to the aforesaid averments. It is further contended that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs and has caused substantial damage to the interest of the plaintiffs, so, eviction has also been sought on this ground.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence, learned trial Judge decreed the suit on ground under Section 12((1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. An appeal was preferred by Puranlal who was substituted by the present appellants on account of his death in the year 2002.