JAGDISH Vs. MANOHARPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-2-2009 passed by XIII ADJ, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 36/2008 whereby the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2008, passed by I Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2006 whereby decree of eviction was passed against the appellant under section 12(1)(f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"), was maintained the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that suit for eviction was filed by the respondent on 17-8-2004 alleging that the respondent is owner of house bearing No. 1-C, Subhash Nagar, Indore. It was alleged that appellant is in occupation of a shop situated on the ground floor of the said house measuring 10 x 22 ft. as tenant @ Rs. 1,050/- per month. It was alleged that appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-9-2002 which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand. Further case of the respondent was that the respondent is heart patient and is in the employment with Municipal Corporation and is going to retire shortly. It was alleged that respondent requires the suit shop bona fidely for carrying on the business of Kirana. It was alleged that need of the respondent is based on bona fides. Further case of the respondent was that the respondent is having no other suitable alternative accommodation to fulfil the requirement. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the appellant. During pendency of suit plaint was amended on 23-8-2006 wherein it was alleged that respondent has retired on 30-4-2006 and respondent has also been operated at C.H.L. Apollo Hospital, Indore for his heart on 14-6-2006. It was alleged that respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement wherein the tenancy was not disputed, however, it was denied that respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on business. It was denied that respondent is having no other suitable alternative accommodation to meet out the requirement. It was alleged that initially tenancy was in the shop measuring 10 x 10 ft. It was alleged that right from beginning the rent was fixed @ Rs. 250/- per month vide rent note dated 30-8-1983. It was alleged that initially a sum Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the appellant. Further case of the appellant was that a piece of land which was lying vacant in front of shop of the appellant was included in the shop and the construction was raised by the appellant with the consent of respondent. It was alleged that a some of Rs. 40,000/- was invested by the appellant and the construction was completed by the appellant in the year 1996 and new rent note was executed by the appellant on 20-7-1996 wherein the amount spent by the appellant was mentioned as security which was Rs. 40,000/-. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit against which an appeal was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed, hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that respondent is not an unemployed person, on the contrary respondent is retired from Municipal Corporation and is getting handsome amount of pension. It is submitted that apart from this, respondent has also got the amount of arrears on revised pay scale. It is submitted that respondent was having no need on the date when the suit was filed as the respondent was in the employment. It is submitted that no suit could have been filed for future need as no cause of action was accrued on the date of filing of the suit.