Second Appeal No. 404 of 2004. Case: Indira Kumari D/o Sagarmalji Jain Vs Vishnukumar S/o Nathulalji Pawar. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 404 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.C. Lalwani, Adv. and For Respondents: H.Y. Mehta, Adv. |
| Judges | S.K. Seth, J. |
| Issue | Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(f), 25 |
| Citation | 2008 (1) MPLJ 349 |
| Judgement Date | September 27, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
S.K. Seth, J., (Indore Bench)
This appeal is by the Plaintiff landlord against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/02. By the impugned judgment and decree the suit decreed by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant, was dismissed.
Appellant filed an eviction suit against the Respondent on two counts (i) non-payment of arrears of rent and (ii) bona fide need of the suit premises for starting business of herself. The Respondent is in occupation of a non-residential accommodation on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. It was specifically averred in the plaint that the Respondent is tenant of Plaintiff. It was also alleged that on the application filed by the Respondent under Section 25 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) had found that the Respondent was tenant of the Plaintiff and he was directed to pay the rent to the Plaintiff. Despite order of RCA, Respondent did not pay the rent from November, 1998 to March, 1999. Therefore, a demand notice was sent calling upon Respondent to pay arrears of rent. Said demand notice was refused by the Respondent; as a result, the suit for eviction was filed by the Appellant against the Respondent as stated hereinabove.
Respondent resisted the suit and denied all material allegations of fact including fact of relationship of landlord and tenant. It was alleged that there was a usufruct mortgage of the suit property in favour of the Appellant therefore he was not liable to pay rent. With these pleadings parties went to the trial and adduced evidence. Learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence found that the Appellant had made out ground for eviction covered under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act. So far bona fide need of the suit accommodation set up by the Appellant, it was negatived by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge, Respondent preferred a First Appeal and the Appellant filed a cross objection. Learned Lower Appellate Court after examining the matter, allowed the appeal preferred by the Defendant and set aside the decree for eviction and affirmed findings of the Lower Appellate Court regarding bona fide need and as a result the cross objection filed by the Appellant was also dismissed. It is against this judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court this appeal has been preferred...
To continue reading
Request your trial