Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajendra Chopra vs Sushil Kumar on 2 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8941
1 SA-2258-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2258 of 2024
AJENDRA CHOPRA
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR
Appearance:
Shri Manish Manana - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pankhuri Samdani, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of
admission.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been preferred by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed by the Courts below whereby the claim of plaintiff has been decreed
on ground enumerated under Section 12(1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation
Control Act, 1961.
3. As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit premises and
defendant is his tenant therein at Rs.350/- per month. The original owner of
the suit premises were Ramkumar, Krushnamurari and Awantilal Gupta. By
a registered sale deed dated 25.07.1967 they had purchased the same from
Babu Chandramohan. By virtue of an oral partition dated 21.08.1981
memorandum regarding which was recorded on 25.10.1981 the suit premises
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8941
2 SA-2258-2024
fell to the share of Krushnamurari Gupta and Umesh Gupta. By a registered
sale deed dated 30.03.2013 the plaintiff has purchased the suit premises from
Krushnamurari Gupta and Umesh Gupta. After purchase he was mutated
over the suit premises and is paying taxes. He had intimated the defendant as
regards purchase of the suit premises and had requested him to pay rent to
him but he has not done so. The suit premises are bona fide required by the
plaintiff for the purpose of his business and he is not possessed of any other
reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town. On
such contentions suit was instituted by the plaintiff for eviction of the
defendant from the suit premises.
4. The defence of the defendant was that no document dated
25.07.1967 has been produced by plaintiff to show ownership of Ramkumar,
Krushnamurari and Awantilal Gupta. No evidence has been produced as
regards the oral partition as pleaded by plaintiff. The memorandum of
partition dated 25.10.1981 is a forged and fabricated document.
Krushnamurari Gupta and Umesh Gupta had no right to execute sale deed
with respect to the suit premises in favour of plaintiff. The defendant has
never attorned the tenancy in favour of plaintiff. The original landlord of the
suit premises was Umesh Gupta who received rent from him till 2012 but
thereafter no one has received rent from him. He has been in possession of
the suit premises ever since then. All the other grounds as raised in the plaint
were also denied.
5. The Courts below have held that plaintiff has acquired title to the
suit premises by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013 executed in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8941
3 SA-2258-2024
his favour by the previous owners Krushnamurari Gupta and Umesh Kumar
Gupta. The defendant has become his tenant by attornement. The plaintiff
has proved that the suit premises are bona fide required by him for
commencing his business and that he is not possessed of any other
reasonable suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts
below have erred in relying upon the memorandum of partition dated
25.10.1981 and by considering the same to be proved. The plaintiff contends
to have purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013
from a firm which was not partitioned between the partners. In the sale deed
Umesh Gupta is stated to be the owner though he was not. He had not
acquired any title by virtue of any document executed in his favour. The
documents Ex.P/1 to P/9 have been wholly mis-appreciated by the Courts
below. It is hence submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below be set aside.
7. I have considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the
appellant and have perused the record.
8. From the memorandum of partition dated 25.10.1981 it is revealed
that a partition had taken place between Ramkumar Gupta, Krushnamurari
Gupta, Awantilal Gupta and Umesh Gupta wherein the ground floor of the
house in which the suit premises are situated fell to share of Umesh Kumar
Gupta. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the said document has not been proved by plaintiff hence ought not to have
been relied upon but it is observed that the trial Court had permitted the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8941
4 SA-2258-2024
plaintiff to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said document.
Thereafter, evidence was led by plaintiff wherein he duly proved the
execution and contents of the said document. The order of Trial Court has
never been challenged by the defendant hence has attained finality. Once the
document was duly proved in accordance with law by proving its execution
as well as the contents the Courts below have rightly relied upon the same to
hold that the ground floor of the house in which the suit premises are situated
fell to the share of Umesh Gupta. The plaintiff has purchased the suit
premises from Umesh Kumar Gupta by a registered sale deed dated
30.03.2013 in which Krushnamurari Gupta has also signed as a consentor.
Thus, by virtue of the said sale deed plaintiff has become owner of the suit
premises and the defendant has become his tenant by attornment. He had also
issued notice to the defendant in that regard. The minor contradictions and
variance in the statements of plaintiffs' witnesses as have been pointed out
are hardly of any significance and do not have any bearing upon the findings
ultimately recorded by the Courts below.
9. The sale deed dated 30.03.2013 Ex.P/1 is in the name of plaintiff in
his individual capacity and not as partner of any partnership firm as has been
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. There was hence no
requirement of pleading anything in regard to the said firm or any dissolution
of the same. The sale deed dated 25.07.1967 whereby Ramkumar Gupta,
Krushnamurari Gupta and Awantilal Gupta had purchased the suit premises
from Babu Chandramohan and another though showed that the purchase was
in the name of a partnership firm but the same has no bearing upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8941
5 SA-2258-2024
matter since subsequently a partition had taken place between all the partners
of the firm in which the suit premises had fallen to the share of Awantilal
Gupta. There was
hence no requirement of any dissolution of the partnership firm for suit
premises to have been so allotted. The sale deed executed in favour of the
plaintiff is by the owner of the suit premises in which there is no illegality.
10. Admittedly the defendant is a tenant in the suit premises. Even if
rent was not demanded from him for a considerable period of time his nature
of possession would not be altered in any manner.
11. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having been
committed by the Courts below in decreeing the claim of plaintiff. No
substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
