DAMADILAL Vs. PARASHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Damadi Lal, Sheo Prasad and Tirath Prasad who were members of a Hindu joint family brought a suit for ejectment on July 31, 1962 against their tenants Begamal and Budharmal on the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) and (f) of Sec. 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, The relevant provisions are in these terms :

(2.) The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated November 11, 1964 dismissed the suit for eviction. There was some dispute between the parties as to the rate of rent; ultimately the plaintiffs admitted that the rent was fixed at Rupees 175/- per month with effect from August 1, 1961 by the Rent Control Authority and a sum of Rs. 1200/- which was the amount in arrears, had been tendered to the plaintiffs by cheque on May 26, 1962 which the plaintiffs refused to accept. The trial Court was of opinion that the refusal was valid because "tendering by cheque is no valid tender" unless there was an agreement that payment by cheque would be acceptable and that he defendants were therefore defaulters within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (a). However, in view of the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenants, which was not determined during the pendency of the suit as required by Sec. 13 (2) the trial Court held that no order for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) could be made in this case and passed a decree for Rs. 1200/- in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) On the question of the plaintiffs' requirement of the premises for their own business, the trial Court found itself unable to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Of the witness examined by the plaintiffs on the point, the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, and 4 was not relied on because none of them was considered to be an independent witness and, further, because it was apparent from their evidence that what they said was that were tutored to say by the plaintiffs. The other three witness were plaintiffs Damadi Lal and Tirath Prasad (P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 respectively) and Radhy Sham (P. W. 5), a son of plaintiff Sheo Prasad. They were also disbelieved because of the following reasons. Damadi Lal tried to give the impression that plaintiffs had no business except the cloth business and the grocery shop at Nadan. He tried to conceal that they had a money-lending business and also agricultural lands. Tirath Prasad stated that the main source of income of the family was from the money lending business. Tirath Prasad also disclosed that the plaintiffs had already a partnership business in cloth at Satna though Damadi Lal and P. W. 5 Radhey Sham did not admit this. It also appears in evidence that the plaintiffs had yet another cloth business at a place called Ramnager which was managed by Radhy Sham. The plaintiffs claimed that they would start a business at Satna, but Damadi Lal's evidence is that they had no income or saving. Tirath Prasad also said that their income was not even sufficient for their maintenance. Admittedly plaintiffs had in their possession one room in the house which was let out to the defendants. The plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence to show how the said accommodation was unsuitable or insufficient for them to start their own business. It was also admitted that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment on an earlier occasion, but the defendants having agreed to pay increased rent the suit was not proceeded with. According to the defendants the present suit was instituted on the defendant's refusal to increase the rent further to Rupees 500/- a month.