GIRRAJ KISHORE Vs. KAMLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant on the allegations that the defendant was occupying the suit accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The plaintiff required the suit accommodation for bonafide requirement of residence of her sons. She was not possessing any other accommodation within the limits of Municipal Council, Guna. She also required the suit accommodation for reconstruction which could not be done without vacating the same. The defendant was not paying the rent and rent was in arrears. The defendant has denied tenancy as well as ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 13,415/ -. Hence ejectment was sought on the ground contemplated in Section 12 (1) (c) and (h) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement took the plea that he was inducted as a tenant of Gurudayal Shrivastava, the vendor of the plaintiff. However, he was occupying the accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/-and not at the rate of Rs. 400/ -. It was denied that the plaintiff has purchased the suit accommodation and tenancy was also denied. It was further pleaded that he did not receive any intimation from Gurudayal Shrivastava regarding the sale of the house. He had continued to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- to Gurudayal Shrivastava. In 1998 Gurudayal Shrivastava stopped accepting the rent, hence money order was sent, but money was not received. The plaintiff is residing in another house situated in front of the disputed house. He is not in arrears of rent. In reply Paragraph 11, it was alleged that notice dated 9-11-1989 was not sent. Although the whole para was denied specifically it was averred that on the basis of notice the plaintiff was preparing a ground through Gurudayal Shrivastava so that any how the house is got vacated. It was contended that no such notice was received by the defendant.