LAKHANLAL GUPTA Vs. NEMCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant/defendant under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5-3-2010 passed by IIrd Additional District Judge Satna in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/09 upholding the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2009 passed by Ilnd Civil Judge Class-I Satna in Civil Original Suit No. 118-A/03, decreeing the suit of the respondent for eviction against him with respect of the disputed shop on the ground of bona fide genuine requirement enumerated under section 12(1)(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 against the appellant contending that the appellant being his monthly tenant @ Rs. 1200/- per month is in occupation of the disputed shop situated in his house bearing No. 40 Chowk Bazar, Satna for non-residential purpose. The appellant being defaulter in payment of the rent and did not pay the same since July, 2002 and the possession of the disputed premises was parted by him to his brother Uttam Chand and thereby, caused substantial injury to the right of the respondent in such property and he was also in need of the disputed shop opening the Beauty Parlor for himself and also for her wife and unmarried daughter for which, he did not have any other alternative vacant accommodation of his/their own in the township of Satna on which, initially by giving the notice dated 9-6-2002 Ex. P/2 the demand of outstanding rent was made. Subsequently, again a fresh notice dated 14-9-2002 Ex. P/6 is also given to the respondent making the demand of arrears of rent and thereby the tenancy of the appellant was also terminated. Despite service of such notice, neither the out standing sum of rent was paid nor the accommodation was vacated by the appellant on which the impugned suit for eviction was filed on the grounds available under sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b)and 12( 1 )(f) of the Act.

(3.) In the written statement of the respondent by admitting the alleged tenancy of the premises, the grounds of eviction as stated in the plaint are denied. In addition it is stated that the appellant could not be treated to be defaulter in payment of the rent as the same was paid in accordance with the contract and prescribed procedure of law. As per further averments, the respondents being in service of some Department is residing at Jabalpur and the alleged house in which the shop is situated was constructed by him only for the purpose of rental income. Initially, he was inducted as tenant in the premises at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and simultaneously contrary to law Rs. 1,20,000/- was taken by the respondent as premium (Pagadi). After five years from the first date of his induction in the premises the existing rent was enhanced by 20% and subsequently after five years again 20% rent was enhanced. In such premises, the appellant is paying the rent of such shop @ Rs. 1,400/- per month to the respondent. Accordingly he has not committed any default in payment of the rent. The family settlement filed on behalf of the respondent being unregistered is not admissible under the law. In addition, it is also stated that the alleged daughter of the respondent is prosecuting her studies at Jabalpur and she is not qualified to open or to run the Beauty Parlor. Besides this, the respondent being member of the Jain community, it would not be deemed that his daughter will remain ever with the respondent in his family and run the business stated in the plaint. In future on any occasion, her marriage could be solemnized and in such premises, the alleged need of the respondent for opening the Beauty Parlor for such daughter, could not be termed to be bona fide or genuine. It is further stated that in the township of Satna there is no tradition to open the Beauty Parlor on the ground floor. Normally, such profession is carried out on the first floor or second floor of the house where the woman customers may go without any hesitation or discomfort. It is also stated that the appellant is having the alternate vacant shop in the same house adjoining to the disputed shop where by opening the Beauty Parlor, the alleged need of the respondent could be satisfied. Besides these, the respondent is also having some open area towards western side of the disputed shop where after constructing the new shop, the respondent may conveniently start his alleged business. It is also stated that the alleged need of the daughter for Computer business and the Beauty Parlor are neither bona fide nor genuine. So far the ground of sub-tenancy is concerned, it is stated that in the disputed shop, his family is doing the business, therefore, if such business is carried out by the brother of the appellant then, the same could not be termed to be a ground of sub tenancy with these pleadings, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.