However, the trial companyrt decreed mesne profit for a sum of Rs.300/ per month against the defendants.
Whether lower appellate companyrt was justified in holding that companysequent upon the payment of mortgage money by Ushabai redeeming the mortgage Ex.
So far as the defendants appeal was companycerned, the appellate companyrt set aside the decree for mesne profit granting Rs.300/ per month and so far as the plaintiffs appeal was companycerned, it was partly allowed resulting in eviction on the ground falling under Section 12 1 f of the Act i.e. bona fide need.
Hence the present appeal.
The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties set aside the order of Ist Additional District Judge, Khargaon on the ground that there was companyplete surrender of tenancy in favour of defendant because of mortgage.
Whether, finding of lower appellate companyrt that the mortgage stood redeemed is sustainable with reference to facts ?
On his death, the present plaintiffs who are the widow and sons respectively succeeded to the suit premises and became owners.
He let out the suit premises to one Balakrishna on a monthly rent of Rs.50/ on 1.12.1950.
The plaintiffs claiming to be the owners and landlords of the suit premises filed a suit out of which this present appeal arises against two sons of Balakrishna for their eviction from the suit house.
Against this order, second appeal came up before learned Single Judge of the High Court in which two substantial questions of law were initially framed which are as follows Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings of the first appellate companyrt on the point of genuine need of plaintiff respondents, is perverse, as arrived at in total disregard of objective facts required to prove the alleged need ?
It was found that the plaintiffs required the suit accommodation for bona fide need of their son, Pramod.
Mahesh became the owner of the suit house.
The defendants companytested the averments of the plaintiffs and resisted the suit for eviction.
It was also pointed out that the defendants had created sub tenancy.
The plaintiffs in their appeal companytended that they were entitled to seek eviction of the defendants on both the grounds whereas the defendants companytended that numberdecree for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.300/ per month companyld be granted and the suit should have been dismissed in its entirety.
Thus, the plaintiffs sought eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on two grounds i.e. bona fide need of Pramod for doing business under Section 12 1 f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act and sub letting of the suit premises to one firm falling under section 12 1 b of the Act.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises as there was bona fide need of the plaintiffs i.e. for one of the sons, namely Pramod for doing business.
This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.382 of 1999 whereby learned Single Judge allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the decree of eviction granted by the first appellate companyrt .
The appellate companyrt allowed both the appeals.
It was also held that since the plaintiffs have redeemed the mortgage by paying the mortgage money to the defendants, earlier relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence enabling the plaintiffs to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity.
Aggrieved against the said decree, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants filed appeals before the first appellate companyrt.
On 3.3.1964 Madhav Rao felt the need of money and therefore, he took a sum of Rs.15,000/ from Balakrishna and executed a mortgage deed on 3.3.1964 in favour of Balakrishnas two sons namely Vijaykrishna and Shyam Sunder mortgaging the suit premises.
Madhav Rao then effected a partition of his properties including the present suit house which fell in the share of his son, Mahesh Parsai.
The plaintiffs got the mortgage deed redeemed in their favour on 8.6.1982 after tendering the mortgage money.
Redemption of the mortgage deed was also denied by the defendants.
Arising out of S.L.P. c No.11446 of 2003 K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
But the learned Single Judge realized that more substantial questions of law arise in the matter, therefore, the following substantial questions of law were framed later on.
P. 1 , the tenancy between the parties revived ?
The trial companyrt held that the mortgage has number been redeemed, numbercase for bona fide need as companytemplated under Section 12 1 f of the Act was made out and that numbercase for sub letting was also made out.
Later on a rent numbere was executed inter se parties on 24.11.1955.
The original owner of the property which is situated in Khargaon Nagar was one Madhav Rao.
Hence this appeal.
The defendants averred that the suit was number maintainable because there did number exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties after execution of mortgage deed, Ext.
