AMRITLAL Vs. RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant - Appellant/Plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/l997 by the 1 st Additional District Judge, Raigarh, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12-05-1997 passed in Civil Suit N0.66-A 992 by the 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh granting injunction in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff was reversed while allowing the counter claim of the landlord - Respondent No. 1 /Defendant No. 2 for eviction under Clauses (c) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act, 196l') of the tenant, i.e., the Appellant/Plaintiff from the suit accommodation.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the Appellant/Plaintiff Amritlal, who died during the pendency of the second appeal, had instituted a civil suit against the Respondents for grant of permanent injunction restraining from dispossessing the Appellant/Plaintiff from the suit accommodation except in.accordance with law. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff was that he was a tenant in House No. 110/2 situated in Ward No. 17, Koshtapara, Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit accommodation') at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and was paying rent to Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2. It was further pleaded that Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2 was not the owner of the suit accommodation and was merely the Sarvarakar and caretaker of the property owned by Bhagwan Mahavir Temple. It was further pleaded that Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2 had fraudulently got his name registered as owner in the records of the Corporation. Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2 had in collusion with Respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 1 sent a notice to the Appellant/ Plaintiff on 02-05-1992 that the suit accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and should be vacated so that it could be demolished. It was pleaded that the suit accommodation was in good condition and there was no need for its demolition.

(3.) THE Learned trial Judge rejected the counter claim and granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff and against the Respondents/Defendants. Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2 preferred first appeal, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 14-A/1997 before the 1 st Additional District Judge, Raigarh. THE lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the counter claim of Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2 and granted a decree for eviction of the Appellant/Plaintiff under Clauses (c) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. Being aggrieved, the Appellant/Plaintiff preferred this second appeal.