PRAKASH PAHUJA Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR
LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-99
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FROM: JABALPUR)
Decided on
February 15,2018
Prakash Pahuja
Appellant
VERSUS
DEVENDRA KUMAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DILBAGRAI PUNJABI V. SHARAD CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]MAHILA SAMITI VS. HOLA RAM SINDHI JUDGMENT OF ZEHRA BAI VS. JAGMOHAN AND OTHERS REPORTED IN [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS' SMT. KAMLA CHENANI AND OTHERS VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD GAUTAM [REFERRED TO]
M M QUASIM VS. MANOHAR LAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
MEENALEKNATHKSHIRSAGAR VS. TRADERS AND AGENCIES [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
S THANAGAPPAN VS. P PADMAVATHY [REFERRED TO]
C CHANDRAMOHAN VS. SENGOTTAIYAN [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA VS. FIRM PRAHLAD RAI PREM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR VS. MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
BHOGADI KANNABABU VS. VUGGINA PYDAMMA [REFERRED TO]
SARJU PRASAD PATEL VS. NANAKCHAND [REFERRED TO]
RAM PUKAR SINGH VS. BHIMSEN [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. CHANDRAKANT PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
KARAN LAL KESHARWANI VS. SARDAR HOUSE [REFERRED TO]
CHIRONGILAL KASHIRAM VS. SHANKERLAL [REFERRED TO]
MAHILA SAMITI VS. HOLA RAM SINDHI [REFERRED TO]
Kailash Chandra Trivedi VS. Punjab National Bank Ltd. [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. MISHRI LAL (DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LR. SAVITRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SUJOY PAUL,J. -
(1.)This appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed in RCS No.04-A/2004.
(2.)The appellant is aggrieved by this judgment and contended that the respondent/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the bonafide need of the suit property, ownership on the said property and non-availability of other suitable accommodation. Ms. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation & Control Act , 1961 (hereinafter after referred as "the Act") and contended that Section 12 is couched in the mandatory language and unless the essential ingredients of Section 12 are satisfied, no decree for eviction of tenant can be passed.
(3.)To elaborate aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel contended that the suit property was originally owned by Shri Chotelal, father of present plaintiff. Shri Chotelal died on 1.10.1966, his wife also died on 13.09.1976. As per plaint averments, an oral partition has taken place between two brothers, namely, plaintiff and Kundan Lal on 30.11.1992. The instant suit was filed on 28.06.2004. The municipal record shows that Kundan Lal is owner of the suit property. It is argued that this factum of ownership is established in view of production of relevant record of municipal corporation. The plaintiff during his cross-examination admitted this fact that in the record of municipal corporation, the property is shown in the name of his brother, Kundan Lal. Thus, the factum of "ownership" is not established by the plaintiff. By placing reliance on 2002 (3) SCC 375, [ Sheela vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash ] and on 2012 (2) MPLJ 460 [Dayal Das (dead) through Lrs' Smt. Kamla Chenani and Others Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gautam], it is urged that in a suit for eviction, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove his ownership in the same manner in which it is required to be proved in a suit for declaration of title. Yet there must be some material to establish ownership which is an essential ingredient for invoking Clause (f).
(2.)The appellant is aggrieved by this judgment and contended that the respondent/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the bonafide need of the suit property, ownership on the said property and non-availability of other suitable accommodation. Ms. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation & Control Act , 1961 (hereinafter after referred as "the Act") and contended that Section 12 is couched in the mandatory language and unless the essential ingredients of Section 12 are satisfied, no decree for eviction of tenant can be passed.
(3.)To elaborate aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel contended that the suit property was originally owned by Shri Chotelal, father of present plaintiff. Shri Chotelal died on 1.10.1966, his wife also died on 13.09.1976. As per plaint averments, an oral partition has taken place between two brothers, namely, plaintiff and Kundan Lal on 30.11.1992. The instant suit was filed on 28.06.2004. The municipal record shows that Kundan Lal is owner of the suit property. It is argued that this factum of ownership is established in view of production of relevant record of municipal corporation. The plaintiff during his cross-examination admitted this fact that in the record of municipal corporation, the property is shown in the name of his brother, Kundan Lal. Thus, the factum of "ownership" is not established by the plaintiff. By placing reliance on 2002 (3) SCC 375, [ Sheela vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash ] and on 2012 (2) MPLJ 460 [Dayal Das (dead) through Lrs' Smt. Kamla Chenani and Others Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gautam], it is urged that in a suit for eviction, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove his ownership in the same manner in which it is required to be proved in a suit for declaration of title. Yet there must be some material to establish ownership which is an essential ingredient for invoking Clause (f).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.