GAYATRI Vs. ASHISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants- defendants have preferred this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-10-2004 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Regular Appeal No. 32-A/03 whereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23-10-2003 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Betul in Civil Original Suit No. 5-A/02 dismissing the eviction suit of the respondent, the same was decreed against the appellant on the ground under section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in short the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents herein filed a suit against one Ramesh Soni, the principle defendant and the predecessor of the appellants, for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit with respect of a shop situated in Betul, contending that defendant being his tenant is in occupation of the same for non-residential purposes @ Rs. 500/- per month. The same was filed on the ground of bona fide genuine requirement of the respondent to open the cloth shop for which he did not possess any other suitable accommodation of his own in such town. As per further pleadings the available adjoining shop to the disputed shop is in occupation of his father who is using the same as godown. The same is also not suitable for the alleged need because a tube well is installed in the centre of such shop. The disputed shop being situated on the corner and facing both sides road is more convenient and suitable for the alleged business of the respondent. The suit was also filed on the ground of arrears of rent. In pendency of the suit principal defendant Ramesh Soni died and thereafter his widow, the appellant No. 1 Smt. Gayatri, being domestic woman and other appellants being minor are not doing any business in such premises and the same was given by them to one Sanjay Soni, the brother of Ramesh Soni, on sub-tenancy. In such premises an additional ground of section 12( 1 )(b) of the Act was also taken by the respondent by way of amendment in the suit.

(3.) In written statements of the appellants, by admitting the tenancy it is stated that initially it was @ Rs. 400/- per month. Subsequently it was enhanced @ Rs. 500/- per month but after death of principal defendant by amendment it is stated that keeping in view such changed circumstances of the appellants' family the rent was reduced by the respondent @ Rs. 300/- per month. The respondent-plaintiff is doing the business of cloth and General Stores with his father since last ten years in his another shop situated near Sunita Lodge, Betulganj. The alleged need of the tenanted premises to the respondent is neither bona fide nor genuine. After inducting the principal defendant in disputed shop, the other three adjoining shops were given to different tenants by the respondents. The respondent wants to evict the appellants from such shop with some ulterior motive. So far his alleged need is concerned, it is said that the respondent can start his new business in the available alternate accommodation situated adjoining to the shop. In pendency of the suit some other shops also got vacated by the respondent. The same are lying vacant. Accordingly respondent is in possession of sufficient alternate suitable accommodation of his own for the alleged need, in which he can start his alleged business. The other stated grounds of eviction are also denied in written statements and prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.