Case: Jaychand Vs Smt. Sushila Devi. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Judges | U.C. Maheshwari, J. |
| Issue | Tenancy Act |
| Judgement Date | April 13, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
U.C. Maheshwari, J., (At Jabalpur)
-
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.7.07 passed by District Judge, Katni in Civil Regular Appeal No. 18-A/05 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.3.05 passed by Civil Judge Class II Katni in Civil Original Suit No. 10-A/2000 decreeing the suit of the respondent against him plaintiff for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
-
The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that respondent herein filed the suit for eviction against the appellant stating that the appellant, being his tenant @ Rs. 550/- per month, is in occupation of a shop described in the plaint and annexed map, situated in the township of district Katni for non-residential purposes. The appellant committed default in paying the rent and said accommodation was also required by her for the business of her adult son, namely, Ritesh for which they did not have any other alternate accommodation of their own in such town. She gave a demand notice dated 28.12.99 (Ex.P/2) to the appellant to pay the arrears of rent with further intimation to vacate the premises for the aforesaid need. Inspite service of such notice, neither the rent was paid nor the accommodation was vacated for her alleged need, therefore, the instant suit was filed for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
-
In the written statement of the appellant, by accepting the alleged tenancy in the disputed shop, it is denied that he has committed default in payment of the rent. The alleged requirement of the respondent regarding disputed premises is also denied. In addition it is stated that on earlier occasion, the suit for eviction for the bonafide, genuine requirement of Ratan Kumar, the husband of the respondent was also filed which was dismissed vide judgment dated 5.4.99. Besides this, after obtaining possession of some shop from the other tenant, the respondent has given the same to other persons on enhanced rent and taking the Goodwill (Pagdi). Besides that the respondent has sufficient alternate accommodation of her own for the alleged need, in such premises, the alleged need of the respondent is not bonafide. Before filing the suit the appellant was insisted by the respondent to enhance the...
To continue reading
Request your trial