Anil Kumar Sand vs Sunil Agarwal
2021 Latest Caselaw 8166 MP

                                  1                               MP-3833-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MP No. 3833 of 2021
                       (ANIL KUMAR SAND Vs SUNIL AGARWAL)


Gwalior, Dated : 03-12-2021
      Shri R.K.Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Rohit Bansal, counsel for the respondent.

This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.9.2021 passed by VI Civil Judge Class 2, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.RCS A/04/2020 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 of

Code of Civil Procedure for framing issues proposed by him has been dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit for eviction has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. The rented premises was let out to the petitioner/defendant by father of respondent/plaintiff who has since died. No partition of the ancestral property has taken place between the L.Rs of the deceased landlord. The

plaintiff/respondent has claimed to be the sole landlord of the rented property on which, other person may also claim in future to be the landlord, therefore, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to frame issue to the effect, whether, any partition has taken place between the legal heirs of the deceased and whether the plaintiff/respondent has exclusive right to claim eviction from the defendant/tenant. Thus, proposed issues were necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and to resolve the controversy between the parties fully and finally and also to avoid further complications in the matter. But the learned trial court has mechanically dismissed his application. The impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Nafeesa Usmani (Smt) and Another Vs. Smt. Anwar Jahan reported in 2009 (II) MPWN 24 in support of his submissions.

2 MP-3833-2021 Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has supported the impugned order with the submission that after death of landlord's father, the plaintiff and his brother have informed the defendant/petitioner that the plaintiff shall be the landlord of the rented premises and the defendant shall pay rent to him only. Necessary issues in the matter have already been framed

by the trial court. The partition between the legal heirs of deceased landlord is not relevant at all. The application has been filed only to delay the proceedings and to create further complications in the matter. The learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application. The petition has no substance and should be dismissed accordingly.

Heard. Considered.

T h e legal position expounded in the above cited judgment is not disputed that the trial court is obliged to frame the issues on material propositions pleaded by the parties and such issues are mandatorily be framed which are necessary to resolve the controversy between the parties.

O n bare perusal of the record of this case, it is found that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner/defendant wherein, it has been categorically pleaded that after death of father, he is the landlord of the rented premises. In the suit for eviction, the ownership is not to be decided by the court. It is only to be seen whether the landlord and tenant relationship exists between the parties on the material propositions pleaded by the parties. The trial court has already framed the issue whether the plaintiff has got a right to file the suit for eviction?. Thus, the plaintiff has to prove that he is the landlord and defendant is the tenant. The defendant will get every right to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff by producing such evidence that in fact the plaintiff is not landlord of the rented premises but instead of him, other legal heirs of the deceased/landlord who have demanded rent from him, are the landlord. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court shall decide the relationship between the parties. Needless to say that such objection may also tend to denial of title by 3 MP-3833-2021 the tenant which shall take it's own course as per law.

In such a situation, in the eviction suit, the partition between the legal heirs of the deceased/landlord is not relevant at all. The issues already framed by the trial court are sufficient to resolve the controversy between the parties. The issues proposed by the defendant/petitioner are not necessary in view of the limited scope of the eviction suit.

In view of above, the learned trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant. Thus, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

The petition is therefore, dismissed.

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2021.12.04 17:03:34 +05'30'