Firojuddin & Anr vs Babu Singh

FIROJUDDIN & ANR. Appellant(s)

:VERSUS:

BABU SINGH Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellants purchased the open and closed area

of House No.3, North Gafur Ki Bajariya, Indore by a

registered Sale Deed from Smt. Kaushar Farzana

daughter of Hakim Ajmal Khan of Indore. The

respondent herein was residing in the two rooms

constructed on the ground floor of the aforesaid

house on rent since the time of Smt. Kaushar

Farzana. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for

possession by way of ejectment of the respondent-

defendant from the suit property and for payment of

2

arrears of rent under Sections 12(1)(a), (e) & (c)

of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. They

contended that the respondent-defendant has

defaulted in payment of rent and that they do not

have any other alternative suitable residential

accommodation in the City of Indore.

The Trial Court, inter alia, held that the

relationship of landlord and tenant between the

appellants-plaintiffs and the respondent-defendant

has been proved and the respondent-defendant was

held liable to pay arrears of rent. Being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial

Court, the respondent-defendnt filed an appeal

before the Court of Additional District Judge,

Indore. The First Appellate Court holding that the

appellants-plaintiffs have bona fide requirement of

the suit property for residence, dismissed the

appeal filed by the respondent-defendant. The

respondent-defendant thereafter filed second appeal

before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore

Bench.

3

The High Court held that "even if it be taken that

the title of the plaintiffs is duly established, on

the basis of the sale deed, but still unless and

until the relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties is also established, the suit

for possession, by way of ejectment, could not have

been decreed." Consequently, the appeal filed by the

respondent-defendant was allowed and the judgments

and decree of the Courts below were set aside by the

High Court. The appellants-plaintiffs are thus

before this Court by challenging the judgment and

order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

Indore Bench.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and have perused the impugned judgment and the

judgments of the Courts below.

It is not disputed that the suit property is in

possession of the respondent-defendant. The Trial

Court having held that the relationship of landlord

and tenant between the appellants-plaintiffs and the

respondent-defendant was proved and this finding

having been affirmed by the First Appellate Court,

4

in our considered view, the High Court committed an

error by setting aside the judgments and decrees of

the Courts below and allowing the appeal of the

respondent-defendant.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside,

the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is

restored and the appeal is allowed. Parties are

directed to bear their respective costs.

However, as prayed for by the learned counsel for

the respondent, two years' time is granted to the

respondent to vacate the premises upon filing usual

undertaking in the Registry of this Court within

four weeks from today.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi;

January 06, 2012.