YASHODA DEVI Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendants who have suffered decree of eviction under Section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (in short 'the Act') from both the Court below.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, briefly stated, are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction inter alia, on the allegation that suit shop situated at T.T. Nagar, Bhopal was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- on 1-8-1970 to defendant No. 1. Later on contract of tenancy was reduced into writing on 4-8-1970. Defendant No. 1 sold the goods of the shop in question to defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- vide Exh. P-13 and parted with the possession of the premises. Defendant No. 2 is carrying on the business in the name and style of 'Kashmir Fancy Store' in the suit premises. On 25-7-1977 a notice was served on defendant No. 1. Defendants had damaged the pillars of the shop and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs. 300/- which adversely and substantially affected the interest of the landlord in the suit accommodation. It was also pleaded that defendant was in arrears of rent for a period from August, 1978 to November, 1978. Accordingly, a decree of eviction under Sections 12(1) (a), (b) and (k) of the Act was sought.

(3.) Defendants filed the written statement inter alia, alleging that defendant No. 2 is neither carrying on business in the name and style of'Kashmir Fancy Store' nor is a sub-tenant. Defendant No. 2 is nephew of defendant No. 1 who is working as manager of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 was carrying on business in the suit shop along with her father-in-law, Dariyanomal. Daryanomal had also a shop of general goods which he had purchased from one Dodumal. Daryanomal had a shop in New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal and was in form of 'gumti'. Since, Daryanomal suffered from attack of paralysis therefore, the goods of his shop were sold which was purchased by defendant No. 2, Kailash Kumar. It was further alleged that Kailash Kumar used to carry on the business of dealing in general goods in the name and style of 'Kashmir Fancy Store'. After death Daryanomal, defendant No. 1 employed defendant No. 2 as part time manager and continued with her business. Defendant No. 2 in the same name carries on the business in another shop namely, Shop No. 28/30 which he obtained on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- from one P.N. Rai. It was denied that defendants had in any way caused damage to the suit property or, are in arrears of rent.