Judgment:
1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 23-8-2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Barwaha District West Nimar confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-8-2001 in Civil Suit No. 11-A/95 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Sanawad.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and the landlord of the suit house situated at Village Barood and defendant Rameshchandra took the suit house on the monthly rent of Rs. 70/- and that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by registered notice dated 20-12-93 which was received by the defendant on 3-1-94. That the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent from 1-4-93 total Rs. 1610/- and as such the decree of possession and the arrears of rent be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant has denied that he was tenant of the plaintiff in the suit house. Defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff has agreed to sell the suit land in Rs. 20,000/- and the plaintiff has taken the amount of Rs. 10,000/-as earnest money from the defendants. Defendants have made the counter claim for the specific performance of the contract of getting the sale deed executed from the plaintiff.
4. The learned Appellate Court has held that the relationship of the landlord and tenant was proved and the appellant defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant and the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal.
5. It is not in dispute that the defendant has not produced the agreement to purchase the suit property nor they have produced the receipt of the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff for purchasing the suit property. There is major contradiction between the statement of the defendant and his witnesses about the alleged agreement by the plaintiff to sell the house. In these circumstances, the finding of fact of both the Courts that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit house to the defendant is in accordance with the evidence on the record. The concurrent finding of both the Courts that the appellant defendant was a tenant of the respondent plaintiff is also in accordance with the evidence produced in the case. It is observed in case of Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, AIR 2001 SC 2920, that is distressing that despite amendment, the provisions of Section 100 of the Code have been liberally construed and generously applied by some Judges of the High Courts with the result that the objective intended to be achieved by the amendment of Section 100 appears to have been frustrated.
6. The appellant undertakes to vacate the suit premises within the period of 6 months. Consequently, the time of 6 months be granted to the appellant to vacate the suit premises.
7. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is, hereby, dismissed.