[Civil Appeal No. 250
of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.5412/2011]
Firojuddin & ANR.
Vs. Babu Singh
O R D E R
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 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.
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.
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
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, 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.