Ashish Shrivastava vs Rohan
2024 Latest Caselaw 21129 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashish Shrivastava vs Rohan on 5 August, 2024

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                              1                                 CR-31-2024
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2024
                                                  CIVIL REVISION No. 31 of 2024
                                                     ASHISH SHRIVASTAVA
                                                            Versus
                                                           ROHAN
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Abhishek Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                   Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent.

                                                               ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 in RCSA No.374/2023 passed by the 2nd Addl. Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has filed a civil suit against the petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of

rent by stating that the plaintiff has given suit premises to the defendant, but the rent agreement was not executed by the respondent, the same has been executed by mother of the respondent. Plaintiff has failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, prima facie suit is not maintainable because no power of attorney has been executed by mother of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff.

2 CR-31-2024 Therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed and his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC deserves to be allowed, but it has been erroneously dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection.

4. Both the parties heard at length and perused the record.

5. Although rent agreement has been executed between petitioner and mother of the respondent/defendant, but it is not necessary that only a person who entered into the agreement is a landlord. Being a son of Snehlata, respondent/plaintiff may be landlord of the suit premises. Although

coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raju Kushwaha Vs. Namita Gupta [2014(3) MPLJ 152] has held that in a suit for eviction relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a must for maintaining suit, but the aforesaid citation is based upon the judgment on merits, but the instant case is at initial stage. Therefore, without giving sufficient opportunity for adducing the evidence to both the parties, this material question cannot be decided at the earlier stage. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court, neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC.

6. Accordingly present revision under Section 115 of CPC is hereby

3 CR-31-2024 dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

trilok