The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
In this companytext, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the rent deposited by the defendant in the companyrt.
Respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which as stated earlier, was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed on that ground alone.
A decree for mesne profits was also passed.
Turab Bhai.
Anntu Jenra w o Sh.
However, as stated earlier, the companyrt decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement on the part of the landlord and directed the respondent to handover vacant possession within two months.
The premises in dispute is a shop located on the ground floor of House No.370 D, Parasi Mohalla, Neemuch Cantt, in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Appellant thereafter filed a companyposite suit for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of i default in payment of rent, ii her bona fide requirement and iii denial of her title on the part of the respondent.
The trial companyrt companysidered the merit of the suit for passing a decree on the ground of bona fide requirement as also on arrears of rent.
Respondent was a tenant under the predecessor in interest of the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.200/ per month.
It was also mentioned that the shop in question was required by the appellant bona fide so as to enable her son to carry out business therein.
An appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.1A of 2004 filed by the respondent before the District Judge was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 17th February, 2004.
Respondent, while denying any liability to pay any rent to the appellant, also denied her title companytending that he has number been informed of the sale of the property by the original landlord in favour of the appellant.
Since, despite the service of the said letter, the respondent failed and or neglected to make payment of rent, the appellant terminated the tenancy of the respondent and requested him to vacate the tenanted premises.
By a letter dated 29th July, 1996 the appellant informed the respondent in regard to the purchase of the property by her and requested the respondent for payment of monthly rent to her.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Whether the civil companyrt has jurisdiction to entertain a companyposite suit filed by the appellant herein for eviction of the tenant is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 28th September, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Second Appeal No.
Appellant purchased the property in question on 23rd March, 1996 from Smt.
260 of 2004, whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, the suit filed by the appellant for eviction of the respondent was dismissed.
