STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SURAJBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ("Act" hereafter) has been filed challenging the order dated 7-3-2003 passed by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Khachrod, District Ujjain deciding the objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("Code" hereafter) and awarding compensation for the damages caused to the suit property.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent in the suit premises. The application for eviction was filed by the respondent under section 23-J of the Act on the ground of bona fide need and the Rent Controlling Authority had passed the eviction order dated 14-10-1998. The order of the Rent Controlling Authority was affirmed by the High Court by order dated 8-3-1999 passed in Civil Revision No. 159 of 1999 by directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within one year. In Misc. Civil Case No. 97 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, the time for vacating the suit premises was extended up to 30-6-2000. The petitioner on 30-6-2000 deposited the keys of the suit premises in the Court after vacating it.

(3.) The respondent had filed application under section 47 of the Code alleging that before vacating the suit premises the petitioner had caused extensive damage to suit premises. The respondent had given the telegraphic notice dated 26-6-2000 even thereafter the ground floor portion of the building was damaged by the petitioner. He alleged that the channel gate, fitting and fixtures, water motor pump, fans etc. provided by the respondent were taken away by the petitioner after removing them. The respondent claimed damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000-00 pleading that such a claim falls within the meaning of execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree under section 47 of the Code. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The Executing Court had got the spot inspection done and recorded the evidence of the parties and thereafter passed the order dated 7-3-2003 holding that the respondent was entitled to the compensation for damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000-00.