Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devi Bai & Anr vs Shankarji Mandir Th.Dwarka Pd. & Anr on 8 January, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:809
1 SA-1079-2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABA LPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 8th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1079 of 2003
DEVI BAI & ANR
Versus
SHANKARJI MANDIR TH.DWARKA PD. & ANR
Appearance:
Shri Anand Mohan Khare - Advocate for appellants.
None for respondents.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18/11/2003 passed by District
Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No.99A/2001 affirming the judgment and
decree of eviction dated 28/9/2001 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I,
Murwara, Katni in Civil Suit No.22A/1991, whereby Trial Court decreed
plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a),(c) and
(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") and
in appeal filed by the defendants, First Appellate Court upheld the decree
of eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and reversed
the decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on the grounds under Section
12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act.
2. Facts in short are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction on
the allegations that house No.128 situated in Jhanda Bazar, Murwara is
owned by plaintiff 1 Temple Shri Shankar Ji, which was got constructed
by ancestors of the plaintiff 2-Dwarka Prasad, as such the Temple Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:809
2 SA-1079-2003
Shankar Ji is his private property and in one of the shops, original
defendant-Sunder Das (now dead, through LRs) is tenant on monthly rent
of Rs.22/-. It is alleged that the defendant is not paying monthly rent
regularly and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 14/6/1980 and the plaintiffs are in
need of the shop for their personal use. It is also alleged that the defendant
has denied title of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for
decree of eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act also. On
inter alia allegations, the suit was prayed to be decreed.
3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement and contended
that the shop in question was allotted by the Rent Controller on 26/10/1953
and at that time, shop in question was under the ownership of Temple Shri
Shankar Ji and Chhedilal, as such the defendant was paying rent to them
equally. It is contended that in the meantime, plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad
started claiming himself to be Sarvaharakar and owner, therefore,
defendant started paying rent to plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad. It is contended
that the Temple Shri Shankar Ji is a public Temple and plaintiff 2 Dwarka
Prasad or late Chhedilal are not owner of the shop in question. The
defendant also denied arrears of rent and bonafide requirement alleged by
the plaintiffs. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be
dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues
and recorded the evidence of the parties and upon due consideration of the
same, decreed the suit on all the grounds under Sections 12(1)(a),(c) and
(f) of the Act vide judgment and decree dated 28/9/2001. Upon filing of
appeal by the defendants, First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and
decree of eviction on the ground of denial of title under Section 12(1)(c) of
the Act, however, reversed the decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:809
3 SA-1079-2003
the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 18/11/2003.
5. Against the said judgment and decree, instant second appeal was
preferred by the defendants, which was admitted on 6/7/2015 on the
following substantial questions of law:-
"(i). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in the
facts & circumstances of the case in decreeing the claim U/s
12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act when the
defendant had never denied the right, title and the
relationship of Shankarji Maharaj and denying title of
plaintiff no. 2 could be construed to be denying title of
plaintiff no. 1?
(ii) Whether the Courts below were justified in not
appreciating that the defendants had paid the rent on
demand of Dwarka Prasad and admittedly Chhedilal was
collecting the rent and in the absence of any legal authority,
Dwarka Prasad was justified in collecting the rent on behalf
of plaintiff no. 1 and the question of his authority by the
defendants could be construed to have denied the title?"
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that First
Appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree of eviction
passed by Trial Court on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the
Act, however, has committed illegality in upholding the decree of eviction
on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. He submits that nowhere
in the written statement, the defendant has denied title of the plaintiffs. He
submits that plaintiff 1 Temple Shri Shankar Ji is owner of the shop in
question, but plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad is not the owner, as such in
absence of any document showing ownership of plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad,
it cannot be said that the defendant has denied title of the plaintiffs and as
such, decree of eviction passed by Courts below on the ground of denial of
title under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:809
4 SA-1079-2003
Sheela & Ors Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, 2002 (2) MPHT 232
(SC), Subhash Jaiswal vs. Trilokinath Kakkad, 2013 (1) M.P.L.J. 453, and
Dayal Das (dead) through LRs Smt. Kamla Chenani Vs Rajendra Prasad
Gautam, 2012 (2) M.P.L.J. 460 and prays for allowing the second appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
8. In the present case, ownership of the shop in question with plaintiff
1 Temple Shri Shankar Ji is an admitted fact and it is also an admitted fact
that plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad was receiving rent from the defendant on
behalf of the Temple.
9. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, Courts
below have found that the Temple Shri Shankar Ji is the private property
of plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad. It is undisputed fact available on record that
defendant has tried to get the Temple in question declared as public
property by filing several applications/petitioners before the Registrar,
Public Trust, though were dismissed.
10. The factum of payment of rent by defendant to the plaintiffs and
entitlement of the plaintiff 2 to receive the rent, has been taken into
consideration in detail by First Appellate Court in paragraphs 19 to 21 and
taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sheela & Ors (supra), has held that after payment of rent by the
defendant (tenant) to the plaintiff 2 (landlord), title of landlord cannot be
denied by the tenant.
11. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, Courts
below have held that denial of title made by defendant cannot be termed as
bonafide denial of title, especially in the circumstances where defendants'
predecessor Sundar Das paid rent to plaintiff 2 Dwarka Prasad.
12. Resultantly, in my considered opinion, Courts below do not appear
to have committed any illegality in decreeing the suit for eviction on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:809
5 SA-1079-2003
ground of denial of title available under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law formulated by this
Court are decided against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs.
13. Consequently, second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
14. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off/closed
and interim order of stay, if any, shall stand vacated.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
