RAJARAM Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has directed this appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-1-2010 passed by 1st Additional District Judge Khurai, District Sagar in regular Civil Appeal No. 43-A/08 whereby, the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2009 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I Khurai in Original Civil Suit No. 135-A/06, decreeing the suit of the respondents for eviction against the appellant on the grounds enumerated under section 12(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (In short 'the Act') have been affirmed while the same was set aside with respect of the ground of section 12( 1 )(o) of the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that one Dwarka Prasad the predecessor-in-title of respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 5 filed the eviction suit against the appellant contending that the appellant being their tenant at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month, is in occupation of the disputed premises situated at Subhash Ward, Raikwar Gali, Khurai, for residential purpose. As per further averments, the appellant being defaulter in payment of the contractual rent and encroached some other part of the house and also caused them injury by denying their title and they are in bona fide genuine need of such disputed accommodation for the residence of their family members for which, they did nol possess any other alternate suitable accommodation of there own in such town. In such premises, the suit for eviction on the grounds available under sections 12(1)(a), (c). (e) and (o) of the Act is filed.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant, the averments of the plaint are denied. In addition, it is stated that he has not encroached any part of the premises. The entire rent of the accommodation has been paid to the respondents. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are not the owner of the property hence on the ground of bona fide genuine requirement enumerated under section 12(1)(e) of the Act they are not entitled to get the decree of eviction. The same was the property of one Kashi Bai, the elder mother of the deceased plaintiff No. 1 and the appellant was of her tenant since last 15 years at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. In further pleadings it is stated that with intention to evict the appellant, the respondent by disconnecting the electricity supply has obstructed the essential necessity of the tenanted premises. With these pleadings the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.