Rajkumari Vishwakarma vs Sachchidanand Singh

Rohit Arya, J.—This revision petition u/s 23E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is directed against the order passed on 23/6/2014 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Vidisha.

Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are in narrow compass. The respondent/plaintiff-Sachchidanand Singh, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Singh, is a retired employee and presently living in rented premises Mishra Bhawan, Neemtal. He owns a house in Mukharji Nagar. The said house was purchased by respondent/plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 28/3/2012. Rent agreement in respect of the suit house was executed on 7/4/2010 leasing the same on rent to the petitioner/defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/- and the same is increased to Rs. 1,800/- per month. On the complaint that petitioner/defendant has stopped paying rent for last six months and is residing therein unauthorizedly the aforesaid eviction petition was filed with the prayer that the petitioner/defendant be directed to pay arrears of rent for six months amounting to Rs. 10,800/- and in the event of failure to deposit the rent, petitioner/defendant be directed to vacate the suit premises.

Petitioner/defendant by filing written statement denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that the defendant is not the tenant of plaintiff. Defendant is residing in the suit premises as its owner. It is denied that any rent agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. Petitioner/defendant further denied fixing of rent and obligation to pay the same. It is submitted that an agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant for sale of the suit house on a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Out of total amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and it was agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- within a period of three years. Thereafter, the said amount has also been paid. Though the plaintiff promised to execute the sale deed and also obtained thumb impressions of defendant on some blank papers under the pretext of preparation of sale deed, but under one or other pretext up till now has avoided to executed the same, whereas he has received entire amount of consideration. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendant prayed for dismissal of eviction petition. One technical objection has also been taken as regards maintainability of application, which is filed under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. It is submitted that no such prayer as claimed in the eviction petition can be made under the aforesaid Sections.

The plaintiff has denied that any agreement to sale was entered into between the parties. It is submitted that the story made by the defendant is totally concocted and has no factual basis. As regards wrong mentioning of the Sections in the application, it is submitted that in fact the application should be treated u/s 23 of the Act for eviction and wrong mentioning of Section shall not merit dismissal of application.

On aforesaid pleadings, Rent Controlling Authority has passed the impugned order by recording the finding to the effect that there is no agreement to sale as alleged by the defendant as regards the suit property. It is proved that the plaintiff has established his title and there is no evidence to the contrary. Resultantly, plaintiff is found to be the owner of the suit premises. Plaintiff has also produced rent agreement to establish landlord and tenant relationship between him and defendant. Defendant has not produced any agreement to sale or any other document to demonstrate payment of aforesaid amount of consideration to the plaintiff for purchase of the suit premises. Defendant has been found to be in arrears of rent. There is no evidence as regards payment of entire rent to the plaintiff. As per rent agreement, tenancy was for the period since 1/4/2010 to 1/3/2011. Thereafter, there was no renewal of rent agreement. Hence, absence of any rent agreement and the fact of non-payment of rent, in the opinion of Rent Controlling Authority, were justified reasons for ordering eviction of defendant from the suit premises.

Counsel for petitioner/defendant after arguing for a while made submission that suit premises may be allowed to be occupied by defendant for six months and thereafter vacant possession of the suit premises shall be handed over to the plaintiff.

Considering the aforesaid submission made by appellant/defendant''s counsel, revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

1- The petitioner/defendant shall continue to be in possession of the suit premises for six months commencing from 10th July, 2014, which shall come to an end on 10th January, 2015.

2- The petitioner/defendant shall deposit entire arrears of rent with the Rent Controlling Authority within a period of four weeks from today (2/7/2014).

3- The petitioner/defendant shall continue to pay regular rent on the fifth day of every following month in respect of the preceding month.

4- The petitioner/defendant shall not make any alteration or cause any damage to the suit property. He shall also not create any third party right in the suit property and shall not deliver possession of the suit property to any third person.

5- The petitioner/defendant shall hand over vacant possession of the suit premises peacefully to the respondents/plaintiffs on or before 10th January, 2015.

6- An undertaking to the aforesaid effect shall be filed by the petitioner/defendant before the Rent Controlling Authority within four weeks from today.

On aforesaid terms and conditions, revision petition is disposed of.