D V PAUL Vs. MANISHA LALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeals arise out of orders dated 17th June, 2009 and 30th July, 2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby an application seeking extension of time for deposit of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant in terms of a judgment and decree dated 4th May, 2006 passed by the High Court in FA No. 108/2003 has been dismissed.

(3.) The respondent Smt. Manisha Lalwani filed a suit for eviction of the appellant under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Katni, alleging nuisance within the meaning of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, for default in payment of rent contrary to Section 12(1)(a), damage to the premises contrary to Section 12(1)(k) and material alteration of the accommodation to the detriment of the landlords interest diminishing the value of the property contrary to Section 12(1)(m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as grounds for eviction. The suit was contested by the appellant and eventually dismissed by the Trial Court holding that none of the allegations made by the respondent had been proved by her. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the respondent appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur. The High Court passed an order dated 4th May, 2006 holding that the appellant was not in default of payment of rent so as to justify an order of his eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The Court further held that the respondent had failed to prove that the appellant had caused any nuisance or that he had caused substantial damage to the premises owned by the landlord as envisaged under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. In so far as construction of a wall by the tenant contrary to Section 12(1)(m) was concerned, the High Court held that the additional construction raised by the tenant did not provide any cause of action for his eviction. The Court further held that in order to warrant eviction the construction must be of such as materially alters the accommodation. The Court found that the construction made in the instant case was of a temporary character and that such construction could be removed at any time without causing any damage to the building. As regards demolition of a wall by the appellant-tenant, the same was found to be detrimental to the interest of the landlord as it diminished the value of the accommodation substantially. Relying upon Section 12(10) of the Act the Court held that it was lawful to determine and direct payment of compensation to the landlord for the damage caused to him. The Court accordingly determined the damage at Rs. 10,000/- and modified the decree passed by the Trial Court to the effect that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation in the Trial Court within four months from the date of the judgment of the High Court for payment to the landlord. In case the appellant failed to deposit the amount so determined, the Trial Court was directed to pass a decree for eviction of the tenant under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act. In case, however, the deposit was made within the specified period, the suit filed by the respondent-landlady was to stand dismissed.