WRITTEN STATEMENT

Order VIII, Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

In the District Court of Dhar, Madhya Pradesh

O.S. No. 431 of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. A

S/o Mr. ABC, Resident of

654, Tilak Nagar, Dhar ……. The Plaintiff

Versus
Mr. B

S/o Mr. XYZ, Resident of

112, Lohar Housing, Dhar …… The Defendant

IN SUIT FOR EVICTION UNDER THE MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMODATION CONTROL ACT,

1961

The Defendant aforementioned respectfully showeth:

1. That contents of Paragraphs 1, 6 and 9 are admitted as being true.

2. That contents of Paragraphs 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 and the averments made therein are

not admitted by the Defendant.

3. That there is no relationship of tenancy between the parties at hand and the same has

been held as not having been proved by this Ld. Court, vide judgment 04.02.2011.

(Ex. D-2

4. That the Ld. Court had in that case, not informed it of the purchase of 654, Tilak

Nagar, Dhar vide sale deed dated 23.11.2009 (Ex. D-1) which brings about the end of

the Plaintiff’s claim, if any, of bonafide necessity for which the eviction was sought.
 5. That the matter having been heard and decided by the Ld. Court vide judgment dated

04.02.2011, the present matter cannot be litigated further, as the principle of res

judicata now apply.

6. That even otherwise, there is no bonafide requirement for House 112, Lohar Housing,

Dhar as the house purchased later by the plaintiff has three bedrooms, two living

rooms which is more than sufficient for the family to live in. Moreover, the Plaintiff

himself has been unable to demonstrate this necessity by showing that the house

purchased on 23.11.2009 is unsuitable for habitation.

7. That there is no tenancy as is alleged by the Plaintiff as no rent has ever been realized

by him from the defendant and that the plaintiff has not acquired good title to the Suit-

Property as there subsisted a lease agreement between the defendant and the transferor

of the property, that is to say Mr. E who had conspired to oust the defendant from his

lease by transferring his title before the completion of his lease period.

8. That the disclaimer of good title to the property in the suit adjudicated on 04.02.2011

and in the current suit is no ground for the plaintiff to seek eviction of the defendant.

9. That in the oral statements of the plaintiff witnesses (Ex. PW-1), the witnesses

themselves were unaware of the purchase of the second property which goes to the

deceit to which the Plaintiff took recourse to in order to deprive the defendant of his

lawful lessorship rights.

10. That no cause of action exists for the suit to even be maintainable against the

defendant.

PRAYER

It is humbly prayed before this Learned District Court of Dhar, that it may be pleased to:

1) Pleased to dismiss the suit as the requirements of Section 12(e) of the Madhya

Pradesh Accomodation Control Act of 1961.

 2) Grant a Decree of Declaration to the effect that no relationship of a tenant and a

landlord exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

Drawn By: Akash Yadav Sd. Mr. B,

Counsel for the Defendant The Defendant

VERIFICATION

The Written Statement filed that is to say paragraphs 1 to 10 as well as the prayer is

submitted to be true and accurate to the knowledge and belief of the Defendant.

Sd. Horatio Sd. Mr. B

The Registrar, District Court Dhar The Defendant
Dated 19.02.2011