Sunil Kumar Aaswani vs Anshu Prakash Nigam
2024 Latest Caselaw 12688 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sunil Kumar Aaswani vs Anshu Prakash Nigam on 6 May, 2024

                                                          1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                 ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 2809 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SUNIL KUMAR AASWANI S/O SWARGIYA AASWANI,
                           AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VYAPAR M.P.
                           RAJYA VIDHYUT MANDAL KARYALAY KE PICHHE
                           WARD NO. 7 SHAHDOL P.O. VA THANA TEHSIL
                           SOHAGPUR ZILA SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    ANSHU PRAKASH NIGAM S/O SWARGIYA VISHNU
                                 PRAKASH NIGAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: VYAPAR PURANI SABJI MANDI
                                 SHAHDOL P.O. SHAHDOL THANA SHAHDOL
                                 TEHSIL SOHAGPUR ZILA SHAHDOL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    ADITYA PRAKASH NIGAM S/O LATE VISHNU
                                 PRAKASH NIGAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: VYAPAR R/O PURANI SABJI MANDI
                                 SHAHDOL P.O. SHAHDOL, THANA SHAHDOL,
                                 TEHSIL SOHAGPUR JILA SHAHDOL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI A.S. HUSSAIN - ADVOCATE)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                           ORDER

Appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 21A/13. This judgment is affirmed by dismissing the civil Appeal RCA No.1500111/2014 by judgment and decree

dated 20.10.2023.

2. Eviction suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff on the ground given under sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and when this judgment and decree was assailed before the first appellate court it was affirmed by dismissing the regular civil appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not tenant on the disputed land. The construction on the disputed land was raised by the appellant. Respondent/plaintiff has no document relating to the title of the disputed land. All the proceedings filed before the Nazul authorities by

respondent/plaintiff have been dismissed up to the Commissioner level. Landlord and tenant relationship has not been established between the appellant and plaintiff. The rent agreement (Ex.P/2(c)) was required to be registered under section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 but being an unregistered document is not admissible in evidence. Under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act this rent note was also required to be registered. Rent payment receipts from Ex.P/10(c) to Ex.P/13(c) are not signed by the concerned judge and not admissible in evidence. Even otherwise these rent payment receipts do not show khasra number of the disputed land, therefore, on the basis of these receipts landlord and tenant relationship is not established.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Ex.P/18 to Ex.P/22 are not title documents therefore do not prove the title of the appellant over the disputed land. To buttress his submissions he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Balwant Singh and Anr. vs. Daulat Sing (dead) by Lrs & Ors. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2719. Learned counsel for the appellant has

also submitted that Khasra No.117 which is of the disputed land is not mentioned in the plaint and therefore, no evidence in this regard can be considered for want of pleadings. To bolster his submissions he has relied upon the para 4.1. of judgment of Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 555. He has also submitted that before the first Appellate Court eight interlocutory applications were filed but without considering these applications have been dismissed. On the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant prays for admitting the appeal on substantial questions of law.

5. From perusal of the judgments and decree passed by the court below, it is apparent that contentions raised by the court below they have been extensively dealt with in the light of available evidence and judgments relied upon. First appellate court in paragraph 8 to 25 of the impugned judgment has elaborately dealt with IAs and dismissed them. Similarly IA filed under Order 41 Rule 27 has also been considered in the light of judgments relied upon and ultimately dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be said that these IAs have not been considered by the first appellate court. First appellate court after due consideration of the submissions on behalf of the parties has dismissed the appeal.

6. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact. Findings are

not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record. No substantial questions of law is involved. There is no justification in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

Akm