FAQIR MOHAMMAD Vs. GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment dated 6-9-2001 passed by II Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2000, whereby judgment dated 30-8-1999 passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Ratlam, whereby in a suit filed by respondent under section 12(l)(a), (f), (m) and (o) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (for short which shall be referred as to the Act) was decreed under section 12(l)(a), (m) and (o) of the Act was maintained, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 24-6-2002 on the following substantial questions of law :-

(3.) Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on 18-1-1996 alleging that respondent is owner of a house situated at Mohalla Kaddus Masjid, Ratlam bearing House No. 4, Room No. 19 @ Rs. 35/- per month. It was alleged that appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 18-5-1995, which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand dated 18-7-1995, which was duly received. It was alleged that the accommodation in which appellant is in occupation is in dilapidated condition. The terrace of the suit accommodation was damaged from where water is leaking and there are number of cracks in the suit accommodation. Thus, the suit accommodation is not fit for occupation. It was alleged that respondent intends to construct the suit accommodation for which the respondent is having sufficient funds. It was alleged that respondent requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for the need of his son. It was further alleged that appellant has encroached the open land adjoining to the suit accommodation and has constructed a bathroom without the permission of the respondent. It was alleged that appellant has caused damage to the property of the respondent. It was alleged that appellant is in habit of quarrel. On the basis of these pleadings decree of eviction was prayed. The suit was contested by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 35/- per month. It was also not denied that appellant is in arrears of rent. However, so far as other grounds are concerned, plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that respondent is entitled for decree of eviction on any of the grounds. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit against the appellant under section 12(l)(a), (m) and (o) of the Act, which was maintained, hence this appeal.