ANSAR AHMED Vs. HALIM ALIAS ABDUL HAKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall also govern the disposal of SA. No. 348/2010 as in both the appeals judgment under challenge is dated 17/12/09 passed by XX Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 25/09 whereby the judgment dated 29/07/09 passed by VII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 333-A/08 whereby decree of eviction was passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as the "Act") and the suit filed by the Respondent under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was dismissed, was maintained, the present appeals have been filed.

(2.) Both the appeals were admitted for final hearing by this Court on 23/06/10 on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) Short facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a suit for eviction on 02/04/07 alleging that the Respondent is owner of suit accommodation bearing house No. 32 situated at Bombay Bazar, Indore. It was alleged that Respondent is owner of the suit accommodation vide registered partition deed dated 20/09/89. It was alleged that Respondent is owner of a piece of property which is measuring 16'. 6" X 11'.6". It was alleged that Appellant is in occupation of half of the property which is suit accommodation and is 8 feet in width as tenant @ Rs. 50/- per month. It was alleged that the nature of tenancy is non-residential. Further case of Respondent was that the Appellant is not regular in payment of rent. It was alleged that the Appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01/09/89 and the same is not paid inspie of notice of demand dated 20/11/06. Further case of Respondent was that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation bonafidely for carrying on the business of manufacturing of bakery items i.e. toast, double-roti etc. It was alleged that property which is in occupation of Respondent is equal to the suit accommodation and is adjoining from where Respondent is carrying on the business of bakery items. In the suit it was further alleged that presently Respondent is bringing bakery items from the market and sales it from the adjoining shop of suit accommodation, which is in occupation of Respondent. It was alleged that now the Respondent wants to start the business of manufacturing of bakery items for which Respondent is not having sufficient accommodation. On the basis of these allegations it was prayed that the suit filed by the Respondent be allowed and decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act be passed.