NAVAL KISHORE TAPADIA Vs. MUNNILAL TAILOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment Second Appeals No.343/1998,342/1998, 345/1998 and 346/1998 are decided analogously. The main judgment is written in Second Appeal No.343/1998 as learned counsel appearing for the parties have referred to the evidence and document recorded in this second appeal.

(2.) All the four second appeals have been preferred by the landlord/plaintiff whose suit for eviction of the defendant/respondent was decreed by the trial Court on grounds covered under clauses (e) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth'the Act, 1961'), however, on appeal preferred by the defendant/tenant, the first appellate Court, while allowing the appeal, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently the suit preferred by the appellant/landlord stood dismissed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in nutshell, is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by his father late Maniklal Tapadia, however, after death of the father, the suit premises has fallen in the share of the plaintiff in a family arrangement and as such he is the owner of the premises. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises is the oldest building of Dongargarh town and is in a dilapidated condition and may collapse at any time. The Municipal Council, Dongargarh has also issued a notice to the plaintiff on 25-7-1984 and thereafter on 29-6-1990 under Section 221 (2) of the Act, 1961 for demolition of the house on the ground that it is not fit for dwelling and it endangers human life. His building consultant has also issued a certificate that the house may collapse at any time. Thus, the plaintiff set up a ground for eviction under Section 12(l)(h) of the Act, 1961 by pleading that the accommodation is required bona fide for the purpose of re-building, which cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated.