PRATAP RAGHAV BHAGWAN Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this second appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the part of judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 37-A/2006, by the District Judge Tikamgarh, by which the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2006, by the Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Tikamgarh, has been set aside to the effect that the decree of eviction granted by the trial Court under the provisions of Section 12(l)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity), has been set aside. While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:-

(2.) Brief facts for consideration in the appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1988, being Civil Suit No. 90-A/1988, against the original respondent/defendant, the tenant, for his eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and a decree of recovery of rent only was granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court categorically held that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to get the decree of eviction of the tenant on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree, but the same was dismissed. The judgment and decree have been placed on record as Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7. The judgment of the appellate Court in the said case, is placed on record as Ex.P/8.

(3.) The tenant-Original respondent/defendant, did not pay the rent of demise premises for the period after the date of above said judgment and decree, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff was required to issue a notice of demand by registered A.D. post on 17.11.1998 Ex.P/1. In the notice in paragraph 6, it was categorically said by the appellant/plaintiff that the arrears of rent after the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the first suit i.e. 1.8.1988 was not paid as there was arrears of rent with effect from August 1988 to June 1996, though the said amount was said to be deposited in the C.C.D., which was not received by the appellant/plaintiff. In paragraph 7 of the notice, it was categorically said that rent with effect from July 1996 to October 1998 was not paid and, therefore, the original respondent/defendant was liable to pay the said amount or else a suit would be filed against the original respondent/defendant. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that after the notice, amount was paid by a money order which was received on 21.1.1999, in which it was said that the rent for the month of August 1996 to January 1999 is being paid. An amount of Rs. 1200/- was sent by the said money order. However, on the date of suit which was filed on 20.9.1999, there was still arrears of rent against the respondents/defendants and, therefore, a decree of eviction on the ground of Section 12(l)(a) of the Act was also claimed. Another ground for eviction of the tenant-respondent/defendant was raised in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff was in need of the demise premises for the purposes of reconstruction of the building for which the sanction was obtained from the Municipal Council, plan and estimate was prepared, but unless the tenant is evicted, it will not be possible for appellant to reconstruct the building.