While admitting the ownership of original owner Rai Bahadur Motiram so also the creation of tenancy by Motiram with him in relation to the suit house denied such creation with the appellant.
Gyarsi Bai Chouksey, Lalta Bai Chouksey, Bhama Bai Chouksey, Bismilla Be appellant herein , Idda Bai and Mohd.
1 16 situated at Street Nos.
In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.
The Department granted the permission to Kasturilal.
Rai Bahadur Motiram Mathuradas was an income tax asseesee.
10 11, Sadar Bazar Cantonment Jabalpur known as Moti Bada later known as Allaha Baux companypound.
He also admitted that the suit house was originally belonged to Seth Motiram and that he was the tenant of Seth Motiram.
Rai Bahadur Motiram Mathuradas inducted respondent as his tenant in House number 402 hereinafter referred to as the suit house on monthly rent of Rs.
Issue number1 was whether the appellant plaintiff has proved the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent in relation to suit house and, if so, its effect.
The Income Tax Department issued the sale certificate on 11.06.1974 Ex P 4 in favour of the purchaser pursuant thereto Kasturilal executed registered sale deed dated 16.09.1974 Ex P 6 in favour of Vasant Kripalani, who in turn, sold the said property same day jointly to six persons viz.,
He also said that on Seth Motirams death, the Cantonment Board acquired the suit house because he did number leave any successor to inherit his property.
Against the said order, the appellant filed second appeal being A. No.
By impugned order dated 27.11.2009, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine saying that the appeal does number involve any substantial question of law.
This is how the respondent denied existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant with the appellant in relation to the suit house and challenged his derivative title.
The appellant then filed a civil suit against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur seeking respondents eviction from the suit house under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
By judgment dated 15.01.2010, the High Court dismissed the said review petition.
The respondent filed his written statement.
Before the arrears companyld be paid, Rai Bahadur Motiram died.
He did number pay his taxes and thus became the defaulter under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short The Act .
The appellant called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.
58, 58 A, 58 B, 58 C, 58 D, 395, 397, 397 A, 398 to 403, 403 A to 403 D and servant quarter Nos.
Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Anoop Kr.
So far as the suit house is companycerned, it fell to the share of the appellant plaintiff .
Kasturilal then sold Moti Bada property including suit house to one Vasant Kripalani.
Srivastav, learned companynsel for the respondent.
The Trial Court held that the appellant plaintiff was number able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent in relation to suit house.
The Income Tax Department, therefore, initiated tax recovery proceedings.
1097 of 2007 and 15.01.2010 in Review Petition No.
It was his submission that the respondent simply challenged the appellants title but failed to prove his case, which was pleaded in the written statement whereas the appellant was able to prove the title of original landlord and also her own and thus discharged the burden.
1097 of 2007 in the High Court.
The eviction was sought inter alia on the grounds companyered under Section 12 1 a , i.e., arrears of rent 12 1 c , i.e., nuisance created by the respondent 12 1 e ,i.e., the appellants bona fide need for his residence and Section 12 1 m ,i.e., unauthorized companystruction made by the respondent without the permission of the appellant in the suit house.
His son Kasturilal Mathuradas, who inherited the properties of his late father, sought permission from the Income Tax Department to sell Moti Bada property to enable him to clear the arrears.
Challenging the judgment in the second appeal and the review petition, the appellant plaintiff has filed these appeals by special leave before this Court.
Jayed by executing another registered deed of sale dated 16.09.1974 Annexure P 7 .
Thereafter, these six persons, by registered partition deed dated 14.03.1984 Annexure 8 , partitioned the said property amongst them.
The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur being Civil Appeal No.
It was held that since both the Courts below have dismissed the suit by answering the issue of relationship of landlord and the tenant against the appellant and also on other issues, such findings are companycurrent findings of fact and are binding on the High Court.
He further denied the grounds pleaded by the appellant for claiming his eviction from the suit house.
The appellant then on 08.05.2003 served legal numberice Annexure P 9 to the respondent terminating his tenancy.
15 A of 2006.
The Trial Court framed issues on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings.
This being the main issue and the same having been answered against the appellant, it resulted in dismissal of the appellants suit though the Trial Court also answered other issues.
80/ p.m. for a period of three years preceding the date of numberice and also called upon the respondent to vacate the suit house on the ground that he made unauthorized companystruction in the suit house without seeking the permission of the appellant.
656 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh whereby the High Court dismissed second appeal and the review petition filed by the appellant herein.
In the second place, learned companynsel submitted that since the appellants suit was dismissed on the ground that the appellant failed to establish the relationship of landlord and the tenant with the respondent in relation to suit house, the other questions as to whether any ground pleaded by the appellant for respondents eviction from the suit house though companysidered but number properly by the companyrts below on merits.
By order dated 28.03.2007, the District Judge dismissed the appeal.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
656 of 2009 before the High Court.
The appellant is the plaintiff Landlord whereas the respondent is the defendant Tenant .
These appeals are filed against the final judgments and orders dated 27.11.2009 in Second Appeal No.
This is how, the appellant became the sole owner of the suit house.
Fifth, these six persons companyowners then by registered deed of partition dated 14.03.1984 effected partition inter se and the suit house fell to the share of the appellant herein.
He reiterated his stand, which he had taken in reply to the appellants legal numberice.
Against the judgment of the High Court in second appeal, the appellant filed review petition being Review Petition No.
One Rai Bahadur Motiram Mathuradas was the original owner of the several houses bearing number.
The respondent replied to the numberice Annexure P 10 wherein he admitted that he is in possession of the suit house for the last 50 years.
