ARUN KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, arising out of the order dated 30-9-2000.

(2.) The applicants filed a suit for eviction against the respondent under Sections 12(1) (b) and 12(1) (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant filed an application on 18-9-2000 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, on the ground that the landlord has demolished the portion as well as the wall in his possession which causes disturbance to the privacy and has made the accommodation not habitable. The landlord denied and filed reply opposing applicants. The Trial Court dismissed the application. An appeal was preferred by the tenant against the order passed by the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court by impugned order has allowed the appeal and after considering the material available on record in great detail, has issued directions contained in para 9 of the order. The lower Appellate Court directed landlord to rebuild and construct demolished area within one month and if he fails to do so, the tenant has been given liberty to construct and rebuild the same at the expenses of the landlord, i.e., he has to be reimbursed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the order is without jurisdiction as the remedy under Section 37 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is available to the tenant and the Court was not justified in passing the order. It is further contended that wall of its own has fallen down.