Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ramchandra Rajdev vs Smt. Sarla Devi on 5 February, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 F.A. No. 398/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.398 OF 2017
SHRI RAMCHANDRA RAJDEV
Versus
SMT. SARLA DEVI
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar and Ms. Kritika Indurakhya, Advocates for appellant.
None for the respondent though served.
..............................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant/
tenant challenging the judgment and decree dtd.17.02.2017 passed by 16 th
Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.656-A/2011, whereby trial
Court has decreed respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the grounds
available under Section 12(1)(a), (c) & (f) of the M.P. Accommodation
Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction
with the allegations that the plaintiff is owner of the rented Godown ad-
measuring 650 sq.ft., in which the defendant was inducted as a tenant by
predecessor-in-title of the godown namely Parasram Rajdev and Shobhraj
Rajdev, which was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed
dtd.15.02.2000 (Ex.P/1), as such the defendant has become tenant of
plaintiff and having accepted landlordship, the defendant has also paid
rent to the plaintiff and at present the defendant is tenant on monthly rent
of Rs.5,000/- p.a. It is alleged that towards the amount of arrears of rent
up to 24.04.2002, the defendant had given a cheque of Rs.50,000/- to the
plaintiff but thereafter, despite service of demand notice the defendant did
not pay rent and is in arrears of Rs.5,65,000/-. It is also alleged that the
plaintiff is in need of the godown for the business need of his son Amit
Kukreja and for this purpose there is no alternate accommodation
available with the plaintiff in township of Bhopal. By amendment it is
also alleged that the defendant despite having knowledge of ownership of
the plaintiff, has denied title of the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations the
suit was filed for eviction.
3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the
plaint averments and contended that there is no relationship of landlord
and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant, hence the suit is not
maintainable. The rented accommodation was taken in the year 1976 by
Hargovind and Company from Nirmal Kumar and Mahesh Kumar on rent
of Rs.545/- per month, as such the arrears of rent of Rs.5,000/- p.a. w.e.f.
25.04.2002 is denied. It is contended that firm Hargovind and Company
has already paid entire rent to the previous owner of the accommodation
up to 31.12.2005, therefore, it is denied that the rent is due w.e.f.
25.04.2002. It is also denied that the defendant was inducted as tenant by
Parasram Rajdev and Shobhraj Rajdev. It is contended that the plaintiff is
not in need of the accommodation for business need of her son and is in
possession of several other alternate accommodations in the township of
Bhopal. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed as many
as 8 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of her case,
the plaintiff examined Ajay Kumar Bahera (PW/1), Smt. Sarla Devi
(PW/2), Amit Kukreja (PW/3) & Ashok Kumar Kukreja (PW/4) and
produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/12), however, in rebuttal no
evidence was adduced by the defendant, whether oral or documentary.
5. Upon due consideration of the material available on record trial
Court vide impugned judgment and decree dtd.17.02.2017 found that the
defendant has not paid rent despite making demand and has denied title of
the plaintiff and holding the plaintiff to be in business need of the rented
accommodation, decreed the suit on all the grounds of eviction available
under Section 12(1)(a),(c) & (f) of the Act.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that although
trial Court has decreed the suit on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a),(c)
and (f) of the Act, but in fact the defendant was tenant of Nirmal Kumar
and Mahesh Kumar, therefore, there was no question of making payment
of rent to the plaintiff or her predecessor-in-title Parasram Rajdev and
Shobhraj Rajdev and the defendant being partner of Hargovind and
Company, paid rent to the person, who inducted Hargovind and Company
as tenant. He submits that as the plaintiff has failed to prove her
ownership as well as ownership of her predecessor-in-title, therefore,
trial Court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit on the grounds
available under Section 12(1)(a),(c) & (f) of the Act. He submits that
although no evidence has been adduced by the defendant in support of
averments made in the written statement, but it is the plaintiff, who has to
prove her case and cannot be given benefit of any weakness of the
defendant's case. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the first
appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and perused the
record.
8. Following point for determination is arising in the first appeal for
consideration of this Court :-
"Wheher in absence of any evidence by the defendant/tenant, whether oral or
documentary, decree of eviction passed by trial Court on the grounds under
section 12(1)(a),(c) and (f) of the Act can be said to illegal or unsustainable in
the eyes of law ?
9. In the instant case, the plaintiff has come with the case that rented
godown was owned by Parasram Rajdev and Shobhraj Rajdev and she
purchased the same from them vide registered sale deed dtd.15.02.2000
(Ex.P/1). As per the case of plaintiff, after purchase of the
accommodation the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff vide cheque of
Rs.50,000/-, but thereafter the rent was not paid. In paragraph 10 of
written statement the defendant has taken plea that the cheque of Rs.
50,000/- was not paid to the plaintiff towards rent, but it was given by
Kishore Rajdev as the plaintiff has sold the accommodation to him
through her husband. Apparently for the reasons best known to the
defendant, he has not examined himself and no oral or documentary
evidence has been adduced in support of his pleas taken in the written
statement, which in absence of proof, are deemed to be denied on the part
of plaintiff. Record of trial Court shows that on 15.12.2016 evidence of
plaintiff was over and case was fixed for 11.01.2017 for evidence of the
defendant but on that date time was sought to adduce evidence and on
next date i.e. 23.01.2017 defendant refused to adduce any evidence.
10. It is also pertinent to mention here that Nirmal Kumar and Mahesh
Kumar with whom the defendant alleges his relationship of landlord and
tenant, are witnesses to the sale deed (Ex.P/1) and are sons of
predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. Nirmal Kumar is son of Parasram
Rajdev and Mahesh Kumar is son of Shobhraj Rajdev. Although the
defendant has not come in witness box but suggestions given to the
plaintiff's witnesses, on behalf of the defendant, clearly show that the
defendant is accepting himself to be tenant of Parasram Rajdev and
Shobhraj Rajdev and of the plaintiff, by attornment.
11. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record
trial Court found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant in
between the parties because the rented accommodation belonged to
Parasram Rajdev and Shobhraj Rajdev and by virtue of regd. sale deed
(Ex.P/1) executed in favour of the plaintiff, she became owner and
landlord of the accommodation. Trial Court has also held that the monthly
rent of the accommodation is Rs.5,000/- per month, which has not been
paid by the defendant despite service of demand notice dtd.19.08.2011.
The plaintiff has by her examination as well as of Amit Kukreja and
Ashok Kukreja, proved that she is in need of the accommodation for
starting business by her son-Amit Kukreja, which has been found
established by trial Court coupled with the fact that there is no other
alternate accommodation available with the plaintiff. Apparently, in
written statement the defendant has denied title of the plaintiff in clear
words.
12. It is well settled that when a party to the suit does not appear into
witness box to state his case and does not offer himself to be cross
examined by opposite/other side, then presumption would arise that case
set up by him is not correct.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon perusal of entire
record, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings/judgment
and decree of eviction passed by trial Court on the grounds under Section
12(1)(a),(c) and (f) of the Act especially in absence of any rebuttal
evidence on behalf of the defendant.
14. Resultantly, first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
15. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed and
interim order of stay, if any, shall stand vacated.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
Date: 2025.02.07 10:34:47 +05'30'
