SANTOSH SINGH Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2004 passed by Additional District Judge Khurai, District Sagar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 131-A/03 upholding the judgment and decree dated 16-1-2002 passed by Ilnd Civil Judge Class-I, Khurai in Civil Original Suit No. 291 -A/2000 decreeing the suit of the respondents for eviction against him on the ground of bona fide genuine requirement for non-residential purpose enumerated 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 respondent herein filed the abovementioned suit for eviction against the appellant contending that the appellant being his monthly tenant @ Rs. 200/- per month is in occupation of the disputed shop situated at Station Road, Khurai for non-residential purpose. As per further averments, the respondent is in bona fide genuine requirement of such shop for opening his business of agricultural equipments and spare parts, for which he did not possess any other convenient suitable accommodation of his own in the township to Khurai. Regarding this requirement, he intimated the appellant through notice dated 1-5-1988. In spite service of it, the same was not complied with and instead to vacate the accommodation for the alleged need, the notice was replied on false pretext. The explanations regarding other accommodation which are in occupation of other tenants are also given in the pleadings. Besides this, the ground of nuisance stating that without permission and consent of the respondent, the appellant has materially altered the disputed shop by removing the wooden doors and placing the shutters. The flooring was also carried out without asking from the respondent and thereby, the appellant caused the substantial injuries to the right and title of the respondent with respect of such accommodation. With these pleadings, the aforesaid suit for eviction was filed on the ground enumerated under section 12(l)(c) and 12(l)(f) of the Act. The prayer for issuing perpetual injunction is also made against the appellant.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant by admitting the alleged tenancy, it is stated that initially the appellant was inducted as tenant on 1-5-1978 and thereafter, by enhancing the monthly, rent a new documentation was carried out by the respondent from the appellant. The reply of the notice was given by mentioning the correct facts. In addition, it is stated that before filing the suit, the respondent demanded Rs. 50,000/- as premium (Pagadi) of such accommodation and also asked him to enhance the rent from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month for which the appellant was not prepared, on which with mala fide intention by stating the requirement of such shop, the suit has been filed on the false pretext while, respondent being agriculturist is having 60-70 acres of agricultural land in his family and he does not have any time for the business as they are always busy in the agricultural activities. So far changing shutters at the place of wooden doors is concerned, it is stated that the same were replaced with the consent of the respondent. The entire rent of the accommodation has been deposited in the Court. With these pleadings the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.