RAJ KUMAR RAMANAND Vs. VED PRAKASH LAL KARAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 2-3-1979, passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil appeal No. 92 of 1976, in appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1972 passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit no. 229a of 1969 CO.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was filed for eviction and arrears of rent of an accommodation situated on Roshni Ghar Road," Lashkar. The plaint allegations are that the plaintiff owns a house, bearing Municipal No. 418, situated in Halka No. 21. On two sides of the house, there are shops and there is a lane in between the shops. In one of the shops, one Bhaget Singh buta Singh carries his business. In the other shop, the defendant has put up a lathe machine and carries his business there. The disputed shop was given on rent to the defendant on 18-5-1966 for 11 months at the rent of Rs. 135 per month. The period for notice of eviction was fixed at one month. The rent-note is executed by the defendant and it is for 11 months. A notice for eviction was given on 24-8-1968, in which arrears of rent due were demanded by the plaintiff from the defendant. The notice dated 24-8-1968 was received by the defendant on 6-9-1968. By the notice, the tenancy was terminated from 17-10-1968 with a condition that if the defendant thinks that his tenancy comes to an end on some other date, he should treat his tenancy terminated on that date and should vacate the disputed premises. In spite of the notice, the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and electricity charges. The rent due from 18-12-1967 to 17-11-1968 was in arrears, the amount of which comes to Rs. 1,458. Out of this amount, the defendant paid Rs. 1,080 on 9-11-1968. After deducting this amount, the amount left over is Rs. 378. As to the electricity charges, he demanded Rs. 42 along with the rent. The grounds taken by the plaintiff for eviction are that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent within two months of the service of notice or demand on him, i. e. , to say, the ground under section 12 (a) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The second ground taken was that the defendant has broken and also demolished the flooring of the disputed shop. It is further said that because of the working of lathe machine, it has created a nuisance to the persons who live in the house, the vibrations produced by the running of the lathe machine, make it difficult for the members of the family of the plaintiff to stay in their house. It has caused a substantial damage to the house itself.

(3.) THE last ground taken was that the plaintiff wants bona fide the nonresidential accommodation which is in the possession of the defendant for having his office. The plaintiff wants an office which is up-to-date because he is a Government Supplier of heavy bulk material Coal and feed, the fodder and for keeping watch over the materials which are stocked in the open space, he bona fide needs the disputed shop to have his office. At present, he has got only one cabin in his possession, but that is not sufficient to meet the needs of the plaintiff and for his need, he has no other alternative accommodation in the City of Gwalior. It is also alleged in the plaint, but not in clear terms, that the defendant is carrying business along with some other partners who are not the tenants of the plaintiff i. e. , to say, the defendant has created sub-tenancy which is not lawful. Therefore, taking into consideration all these allegations in short the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction on the grounds mentioned under section 12 (l) (a), 12 (I) (b), 12 (l) (c) and 12 (I) (f)of the Act.