Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra vs Dharamchand on 1 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
SECOND APPEAL No. 684 of 2024
RAJENDRA
Versus
DHARAMCHAND AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate with Shri
Divyansh Luniya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Priyanka Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 31.01.2025)
(Pronounced on 01.03.2025)
1. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of
admission.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by
defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
the Courts below whereby the claim of plaintiff for his eviction from
the suit premises has been decreed on ground enumerated under Section
12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
3. As per the plaintiff, by a registered sale deed dated 24.06.2002 he
had purchased the ground floor of house bearing No.103 from father of
defendants Ganeshchandra Jaiswal and Narmadabai. By another
registered sale deed dated 22.07.2006 he had purchased the first, second
and third floor of the house. Ganeshchandra was having certain other
property also towards the east which he wanted to get repaired, hence
had taken the first and third floor of the house on rent from him at
Rs.2,750/- per month for a period of two years. A document in that
regard was also executed between them on 22.07.2006. The father of
defendants however did not pay any rent for the suit premises nor
vacated the same after the fixed period of two years. He expired in
March, 2013 and the defendants are his legal representatives. Defendant
No.1 alone is residing in the suit premises whereas defendant No.2 is
residing in her matrimonial house. The suit premises are bona fide
required by him for residence of his adult son and he is not possessed of
any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
the town. On 05.05.2014, he had issued a notice to the defendants to
vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrears of rent but they did not
do so. On such contentions suit was instituted by the plaintiff for
eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.
4. The defendant No.1 contested the claim by filing his written
statement submitting that besides Ganeshchandra and Narmadabai, Smt.
Chintesh was also the owner of the house. She has already instituted a
civil suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of
plaintiff are null and void which is pending. The father of defendants
was not tenant of plaintiff in the suit premises and there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The suit premises are
not bona fide required by the plaintiff for residence of his son and he is
possessed of reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in
the very house itself. Despite service of summons upon her, defendant
No.2 did not appear before the trial Court hence was proceeded against
ex parte.
5. The Courts below have held that the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff and defendants has been proved by the
plaintiff who has also proved that he is the owner of the house. The suit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
premises are bona fide required by plaintiff for residence of his son and
he is not possessed of any reasonably suitable alternate accommodation
of his own in the town.
6. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has submitted that the Courts
below have erred in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant
between plaintiff and defendants has been proved. There is no
document available on record to show payment of rent by the
defendants or their father to the plaintiff. No rent receipt has been
produced by plaintiff nor is there any other document to establish the
relationship. The only document produced by the plaintiff for proving
such relationship is the agreement dated 22.07.2006 (Ex.P/15). The
same is a lease agreement and was required to be registered and duly
stamped. The same is unregistered and insufficiently stamped and was
wholly inadmissible in evidence but was wrongly admitted in evidence
by the trial Court. It is written on stamp paper of Rs.100/- only. The
same has even otherwise not been proved by the plaintiff particularly
when the same was denied in the written statement. No attesting
witness has been examined to prove the same. It was not signed by the
plaintiff hence is not a valid contract between the parties. Merely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
because the same was marked as an exhibit it could not have been held
to have been proved. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the
decision of this Court in Haseena Bee V/s. State of M.P. (2011) 4
MPLJ 140. It is further submitted that defendant No.2 had expired
prior to passing of the decree by the trial Court but her legal
representatives were not brought on record. The tenancy was joint
tenancy upon death of father of the defendants and in view of failure to
bring her legal representatives on record the entire suit had abated.
Since there were two tenants decree only against one of them could not
have been passed. Applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC were
preferred by defendant No.1 before the lower appellate Court which
have been rejected on wholly irrelevant grounds. No other ground was
urged. 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 learned counsel for
defendant No.1 and have perused the record.
8. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for
defendant No.1 that the agreement dated 22.07.2006 Ex.P/15 is a lease
deed but from a perusal of the same it is abundantly clear that the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
is not so but is only a tenancy agreement. Thereunder the suit premises
were given to father of the defendants on rent at Rs.2,750/- per month.
Though it was stated that the premises are being let out for a period of
two years but only for that reason it would not make the document to be
a lease deed. The agreement was hence not required to be registered as
under the provisions of the Registration Act there is no requirement of
any such rent agreement to be compulsorily registered.
9. The agreement is written on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- which is
sufficient since it is a mere agreement of tenancy and not a lease deed.
The contention of defendant No.1 would have been acceptable only if it
was a lease agreement but since it is a rent agreement the objection as
raised by defendant No.1 before the trial Court at the time of marking
of the document as an exhibit was rightly rejected by it.
10. The document Ex. P/15 has been proved by the plaintiff by way
of his statement. From a perusal of his entire cross-examination, it is
evident that the factum of execution of the agreement by father of
defendants could not be disproved by the defendants in any manner.
The statement of plaintiff inspires confidence and is trustworthy and
credible hence has rightly been acted upon by the Courts below for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
holding that the agreement has been proved by him. The finding as
regards execution of the document is a pure finding of fact and is not
liable to be interfered with at the second appellate stage particularly
when no illegality or perversity in the same has been pointed out. Thus,
non-examination of any attesting witness by plaintiff of the agreement
is hardly of any significance. The document was signed by father of
defendants Ganeshchandra and was executed in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff categorically accepts the document and in fact relies upon
the same. The same was hence not required to be signed by the plaintiff
who has accepted the contract. The document having been signed by
Ganeshchandra, it is not open for the defendants to turn around to say
that the same is not a valid completed contract since it was not signed
by the plaintiff. In such circumstances the finding of the Courts below
that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and
defendants has been established cannot be faulted with.
11. In the plaint itself the plaintiff had categorically stated that father
of defendants Ganeshchandra was tenant in the suit premises. Upon his
death defendant No.1 is residing therein and defendant No.2 is residing
in her matrimonial house at Maharashtra. In such circumstances there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
was no necessity for the plaintiff to bring on record the legal
representatives of deceased defendant No.2 upon her death since upon
death of original tenant the tenancy was being sufficiently represented
by defendant No.1. It is not the case of defendant No.1 that defendant
No.2 is also residing in the suit premises. Defendant No.2 was arrayed
as a party only for being legal representative of Ganeshchandra and in
no other capacity. Thus, failure to bring her legal representatives on
record does not effect the decree in any manner since it is defendants
No.1 who is in exclusive possession. It hence cannot be said that on
account of death of defendant No.2 the suit had abated. It is not a case
of joint tenancy but is a case of inheritance of original tenancy. The
decree could have very well been passed against defendant No.1 only
since it is he who is in possession.
12. In the appeal an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC
was preferred by defendant No.1 for amendment of his written
statement to contend that upon death of defendant No.2 the suit had
abated. The said application has been rejected by the appellate Court.
As stated above upon death of defendant No.2 the suit had not abated
and there was no requirement of bringing her legal representatives on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
record. The appellate Court has hence not committed any error in
rejecting the amendment application preferred by defendant No.1. The
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC preferred by defendant
No.1 was for the purpose of bringing the Death Certificate of defendant
No.2 on record. Her death is not disputed and the legal consequences of
non-impleadment of her legal representatives have already been
considered as above, hence there was no justification for filing of
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC by defendant No.1.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error
having been committed by the Courts below in upholding the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and decreeing
the plaintiff's claim. The findings recorded by the Courts below are just
and proper and have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence
available on record. No illegality or perversity in the same has been
pointed out. No substantial question of law arises for determination in
this appeal which is consequently dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5130
