Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganga Vishan vs Shivcharan Lal on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7637
1 SA-71-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 71 of 2025
GANGA VISHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVCHARAN LAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta - learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Rashi Kushwah-
Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi with Shri Ankur Maheshwari- Advocate
for the respondent no.1/[CAVEAT].
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree
dated 20.12.2024 passed by Second District Judge, Joura, District Morena
(M.P.) in RCA No.02 of 2020 whereby, the First Appellate Court has
reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment
dated 19.12.2019 passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Joura, District Morena
(M.P.) in Civil Suit No. 13-A/2016. Thus, the First Appellate Court has
passed a decree of eviction against the appellants/defendants.
[ 2 ] . The respondent no.1/plaintiff (now represented through legal
heirs) had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants/defendants inter-alia
on the ground that the suit premises was initially owned by his mother who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7637
2 SA-71-2025
let out the same to defendant no.1 on 01.01.1958 at the monthly rate of
Rs.30. It is pleaded that because of some dispute between the plaintiff and
the father of defendant no.4, the rent in respect of the suit premises was to be
deposited with the Tehsildar, Joura. It is further pleaded that vide order dated
15.09.1989 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, the dispute between the
plaintiff and the father of defendant no.4 got resolved and the suit shop fell
to the plaintiff's share. His name was also mutated in the records of
Municipal Corporation on 02.08.1988. It is further pleaded that the defendant
no.1 sold his flour-mill and other attached movable properties to defendant
no.2 vide sale letter executed on 24.08.1985. It is thus pleaded that the
defendant no.1 unauthorizedly sublet the premises to defendant no.2. The
defendant no.1 was also stated to have stopped payment of rent to plaintiff.
Thus, a suit for eviction for grounds under Section 12(1)(a), (b) & (c) of
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, was filed.
[3]. The, defendant no.1 filed his written statement and supported the
plaintiff's case. He accepted that the suit premises was let out to him in the
year 1958. He pleaded that he has sold the flour-mill and the attached
machinery to defendant no.2 vide sale letter dated 24.08.1985 with an
understanding that the defendant no.2 shall shift the flour-mill to other place.
However, the defendant no.2 instead of shifting the flour mill to some other
place, continued using the premises in question.
[4]. The defendant no.4 also filed his separate written statement and
supported the plaintiff's case.
[5]. The suit was contested by defendants no.2 & 3 by filing their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7637
3 SA-71-2025
common written statement. In substance, it was pleaded by them that the suit
property does not belong to the plaintiff and the same belong to Mandir Shri
Maharaj Trust which is a public public trust and, therefore, the plaintiff has
n o locus to seek their eviction. They further pleaded that the settlement
entered into between plaintiff and defendant no.4 on 15.09.1989 is nonest
and without authority.
[6]. Learned Trial Court after taking evidence of both the sides,
dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2019 holding that
the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is
not established; that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant no.1
has sublet the suit shop to defendants no.2; and that the plaintiff is not
entitled to seek eviction of the defendants and for recovery of arrears of rent.
[7]. The plaintiff being aggrieved filed the appeal challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The learned First Appellate
Court has decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree directing
eviction of defendant no.2 & 3 from the suit premises.
[8]. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on admission.
[9]. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that
there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the
defendant no.1 and/or defendant no.2. He submitted that Mandir Shri
Maharaj Trust was registered as public trust by the order of Registrar Public
Trust passed on 08.08.1973. It is his submission that the suit property was
included as the property of public trust and, therefore, the settlement between
the plaintiff and the father of defendant no.4 accepted by the order of SDO
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7637
4 SA-71-2025
dated 15.09.1989 is of no consequence. It is his submission that the litigation
arising out of order dated 15.09.1989 is pending before this Hon'ble Court in
a separate writ petition. He, thus, submitted that in absence of any
relationship of landlord and tenant, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking their
eviction was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court erred in interfering with the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court.
[10]. Considered the arguments and perused the record. It is the
specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 was the tenant pursuant
to the rent agreement dated 01.01.1958 (Ex. P/54). The defendant no.1 has
filed his written statement and has accepted the aforesaid relationship of
landlord and tenant. The defendant no.2 is claiming to be in possession of the
suit premises through defendant no.1. In other words, he has no independent
right to hold & occupy the suit premises better than the one the defendant
no.1 had pursuant to the rent agreement dated 01.01.1958. The learned
counsel for the appellants has argued that there is a collusion between the
plaintiff and the defendant no.1. This argument is inconsequential and does
not help the defendant in absence of any independent right to occupy the suit
premises. The admitted fact remains that the defendant no.2 stepped into the
shoes of defendant no.1. The defendants have failed to point-out as to
whether their status to hold possession of suit premises changed
subsequently. Thus, the defendant no.1, since was the tenant of plaintiff, the
defendant no.2 will have to be the sub-tenant. Thus, it has to be accepted that
the defendant no.2 was inducted as sub-tenant by the defendant no.1 who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7637
5 SA-71-2025
was the plaintiff's tenant.
[11]. The Mandir Shri Maharaj Trust was registered as public trust on
08.08.1973. However, in the litigation arising out of said registration of
Public Trust, the plaintiff was not the party as is evident from the judgment
and decree, dated 05.05.1975, (Ex. D/26). Thus, when the plaintiff was not
party in those proceedings, how and in what manner the suit property was
recorded as trust property is required to be decided in separate proceedings.
However, it is a fact that vide order dated 15.09.1989, the suit premises fell
to the plaintiff's share. He has been recorded as owner of the property in the
municipal records. Thus, being the sub-tenant, it is not open to the defendant
no.2 to dispute the title of the plaintiff. There may be a dispute with regard to
the ownership of the property between the trust and the plaintiff. However,
the defendant no.2, being the tenant, cannot be allowed to take benefit of the
said dispute.
[12]. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the rent agreement
Ex. P/54 has not been proved by plainitff by examining the witnesses. This
submission is also not acceptable inasmuch as the execution of rent
agreement is admitted by defendant no.1 who was one of the party therein.
Even otherwise, the appellant has failed to point out any other mode through
which he came to be in possession of suit premises.
[13]. The learned First Appellate Court in paragraphs 36, 37 & 38
have taken into account these facts available on record of the instant case and
after appreciating the effect of various orders passed by various authorities,
has recorded a finding that the defendants/appellants are the sub-tenants in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7637
6 SA-71-2025
the suit premises. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid
finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. The
appellants/defendants failed to point-out any substantial question of law to be
considered in the instant appeal.
[ 1 4 ] . Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits and is
accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
