Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Keshar Bai vs Smt.Vijay Rani (Dead) Yash Kumar Jain on 19 June, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 S.A. No.157-1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 157 of 1999
SMT.KESHAR BAI (DEAD) VIMLA SINGH AND ANOTHER
Versus
SMT.VIJAY RANI (DEAD) YASH KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravish Agrawal Sr. Advocate with Shri Jaspreet Gulati - Advocate for
the appellants.
Shri R.P. Khare - Advocate for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.01.1999 passed by Fourth
Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No.28-A/1998 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 22.01.1997 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I,
Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.485-A/1995 whereby Courts below have concurrently
decreed the suit for eviction filed by the original respondent/plaintiff- Smt. Vijay
Rani (Now dead through LRs).
2. Facts in short are that the original respondent/plaintiff- Smt. Vijay Rani
instituted a suit for eviction against the appellants/defendants in respect of the
premises consisting of two rooms with the allegations that husband of the
defendant 1- Smt. Keshar Bai was employee of the plaintiff, therefore he was given
disputed rooms for residence as a licensee. It is alleged that after death of husband,
namely Khadak Singh on 06.12.1989, the defendant Smt. Keshar Bai illegally
handed over possession of the rooms to the defendant 2-Devi Singh in the year
1992. As such, eviction was sought along with decree of mesne profits.
3. The defendants appeared and filed separate written statements denying the
plaint allegations and contended that they are tenants in the disputed rooms and are
not licensee and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Thereafter, in the light of pleadings made in the written statement, the
plaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that if the defendants are not found to be
licensee, the decree be passed under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation
Control Act and accordingly sought decree of eviction on the grounds available
under Section 12(1)(b),(j)&(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and
recorded evidence of the parties and upon due consideration of the material
available on record found that husband of the defendant 1-Smt. Keshar Bai,
namely, Khadak Singh was employee of the plaintiff and he was given the rooms
for residence and after death of Khadak Singh in the year 1989, the defendant 1-
Keshar Bai handed over possession of rooms to Devi Singh in the year 1992, and
accordingly decreed the suit for eviction vide judgment and decree dated
22.01.1997. Against which the defendants preferred regular civil appeal which by
the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.01.1999 has been dismissed.
6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Courts below Second
Appeal was preferred, which was admitted for final hearing on 08.04.1999 on the
following substantial questions of law :-
"(1) Whether the Court below could decree the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff by ignoring the material and vital
evidence on record including certain admissions made on
behalf of the respondent ?
(2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the
appellants were lessee or licensee of the suit-house ?
(3) What is the effect of non-framing of the issues regarding
the alternative case of the respondent/plaintiff ?
(4) Whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the
Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants in the
appellate Court could be rejected on the ground mentioned
in the impugned judgment ? "
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the appellants are
not licensee but they were inducted as tenant in the disputed rooms and Courts
below have ignored vital piece of evidence as well as admissions made by the
plaintiff in that regard while recording findings regarding relationship of licensor
and licensee. He also submits that despite taking alternative plea by the plaintiff in
the plaint regarding tenancy, no issue was framed in that regard, which has vitiated
entire trial. He also submits that first appellate Court has committed illegality in
dismissing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and submits that the
documents filed before this Court by way of application under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC dtd. 24.01.1999 go to the roots of the case as the entries made in the house tax
register show that the appellants were inducted as tenants in the disputed rooms
and not as licensee. With these submissions he prays for allowing the second
appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiff supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for dismissal of
the second appeal with the further submissions that the finding in relation to
licensor and licensee is a pure finding of fact and is not liable to be interfered with
within the limited scope of Section 100 of CPC.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. All the aforementioned four substantial questions of law formulated by this
Court are related to each other, therefore, are being decided jointly.
11. In the present case, undisputedly the plaintiff is owner of the disputed
rooms. It is also undisputed fact on record that defendant 1-Keshar Bai's husband
namely, Khadak Singh was employee of the plaintiff and was given the disputed
rooms for residence. As to whether he was licensee or tenant, Courts below in
detail have taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available
on record and in absence of any evidence regarding induction of the defendants as
tenants, concluded that the defendants are licensee in the rooms. Upon due
consideration of the entire material available on record, the said finding does not
appear to be illegal or perverse. Further, the concurrent findings based on
pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, are not vitiated only on the ground
of non framing of issue on alternative pleas, because the same has also been taken
into consideration by Courts below.
12. Perusal of the record shows that the defendants have not produced any
documentary evidence before trial Court regarding their status as tenants in the
disputed rooms. Even before the first appellate Court two rent receipts were filed
along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC but they don't suggest
anything about relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the plaintiff and
defendants. Also before this Court, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has
been filed annexing the copies of house tax register showing status of defendants
as tenants in the disputed rooms, but that itself cannot be considered as an evidence
of tenancy over and above the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts
below regarding relationship of licensor and licensee, amongst the plaintiff and
defendants. Upon due consideration, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
filed before this Court on 24.01.1999 is dismissed.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has by issuing registered
notice dtd.07.01.1993 (Ex.P/1), already cancelled the license and despite service of
notice, no reply was given by the defendants.
14. Resultantly, all the four substantial questions of law are decided against the
appellants/defendants.
15. Accordingly, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed and interim order of
stay, if any, shall stand vacated.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
SATTYENDA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR,
2.5.4.20=a88335b5aa0b86d1da90cd0e8cd9c3da6ba424cc6b
0449615e32a4a00d6a7a89, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH JABALPUR,CID - 7033867, postalCode=482001,
R NAGDEVE
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=b15ae3a81ea93b6ff53b05bf3c54d7fcea9b520
d6221ff93afc887977c69b891, cn=SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE
Date: 2025.06.20 20:00:08 +05'30'
