KANTA SALARIA Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants/Defendants have directed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009 passed by I7th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), District Jabalpur in regular civil appeal No. 8-A/08 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.07 passed by III Civil Judge Class-I Jabalpur in original civil suit No. 123-A/03, decreeing the suit of the Respondents against them for eviction with respect of the disputed residential premises on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(a) and (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (In short 'the Act').

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the Respondents/Plaintiffs, being landlord of House No. 924 (Old No. 1644/3), situated in Ward No. 24 of Napier Town, Jabalpur, have filed the aforesaid suit for eviction against the Appellants contending that one Nihalchand, the predecessor in title of the Appellants, being tenant was in possession of the aforesaid disputed house. On purchasing the house by the Respondents, such Nihalchand, by attornment, has become the tenant of the Respondents. Subsequent to death of Nihalchand, the Appellants had accepted such tenancy on the same terms and conditions, according to which said Nihalchand and thereafter the Appellants, being monthly tenant of the Respondents @ of Rs. 75/-per month were remained in occupation of such premises for residential purpose. The disputed premises is elaborately described in the plaint as well as shown in red color in the map annexed with the plaint. Initially the rent was deposited by the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant and subsequent to his death, was being paid by the Appellants. As the parties had good relations with each other, therefore, the receipt of depositing the rent was not given at any point of time to the Appellants. As per further averments, the Appellants, being defaulter in payment of rent, had not paid the same from the month of May,1989 upto October, 2001 i.e near about 149 months. Such arrears of the rent was Rs. 11,175/-. Besides this, the Respondents No. 1 to 3, the Plaintiffs, were in bonafide, genuine need of such accommodation for the residence of Respondent No. 3 and his family for which they did not have any other convenient and suitable alternate accommodation of their own in the town of Jabalpur. At present, Respondent No. 3 and his family is residing along with his mother and family of Respondent No. 2 in House No. 531, situated in Kotwali Ward Jabalpur. One brother of Respondent No. 3 who is under insanity, is also residing with him. It is also stated that the accommodation in which the Respondent No. 3 is residing with his mother and other family members is not sufficient for them as per their requirement. By mentioning some particulars, it is stated that looking to the standard of living of the Respondents, it is necessary for them to reside separately in different houses and while residing in such houses they would be in need of some premises also for the garage or their vehicles. It is also stated that after vacating the premises, Respondent No. 3 shall reconstruct the house for his alleged need. It is also stated that the wife of Respondent No. 3 did not have good relations with his mother Smt Champa Bai, as such, the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law did not have good relations and, in such premises, also it is not possible for them to reside together in one home. It is also pleaded that besides the tenanted accommodation, the Appellants and their predecessor, by encroaching the adjoining land of Respondents No. 1 to 3 near about 2290 sq.ft and without taking any consent or permission from the Respondents has made some permanent construction on the same. Such construction being illegal and contrary to the interest of the Respondents has caused substantial injury to the right and ownership of the Respondents with respect of such property. In such premises, the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur had also given a notice to the Appellants but, however, by taking advantage of their relations with the officials of the Municipal Corporation, the Appellants successfully got closed such proceedings. Some of the part of such house is in possession of Respondents No. 1 to 3 in which their employee and some family members are residing and some of the part is being used for business of Respondent No. 1. Some times it is also used as guest house for their family guests. On such available grounds, before filing the suit, a notice dated 24.4.2001 (Ex.P/8) making demand of the arrears of the rent along with terminating the tenancy with the intimation to vacate the premises was given to the Appellants. Inspite the service of the same on the Appellants, neither the arrears of the rent was paid or tendered nor the accommodation was vacated in compliance of the same. On the contrary, the same was replied vide dated 23.6.2001 (Ex.D/1) under the false pretext, on which, after expiry of the statutory period of two months as per requirement of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, the impugned suit for eviction was filed against the Appellants on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),(m),(o) and (e) of the Act.

(3.) In the written statement of the Appellants, it is stated that the Respondents/Plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 have to plead their own case to prove their ownership. The map annexed with the plaint was also disputed. However, they admitted that they are the legal representatives of deceased Nihalchand. It is categorically stated that no default has been committed in payment of the rent of the premises with the averment that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are not entitled to receive the sum of the arrears of rent which had become barred by time, the demand of such arrears of the rent could be made only for the sum recoverable under the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is also stated that Appellant No. 2 had paid the rent regularly to Respondent No. 1 for which no receipt has been given to him. The alleged bonafide, genuine requirement of the disputed premises to the Respondents/Plaintiffs is also denied, with the averments that in the House of Champa Bai all necessary facilities are available to them. It is also stated that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are having their joint hindu family and besides the disputed premises they had some other alternate vacant accommodation of their own in Jabalpur for which some particulars and description was also given in the pleadings. In such premises, it is stated that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are having more suitable and convenient accommodations with all facilities for their alleged need. In further averments it is stated that they have not made any illegal construction in the tenanted premises or at the place adjoining to it. In the disputed portion four latrine and bathroom are included. One temporary shed is also coming in existence in the tenancy since long which was constructed with the consent of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. In such premises, it is denied that any construction contrary to the rights of the Respondents/Plaintiffs was carried-out by the Appellants in the disputed premises. Whatsoever repairing was done, the same was carried-out with the consent of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. In such repairing work, the Appellants have spent Rs. 6500/-. It is also stated that the Respondents/Plaintiffs, by giving some intimidation, were insisting the Appellants for enhancing the monthly rent @ of Rs. 500/-per month for which the Appellants were not prepared, on which by stating false averments, the present suit is preferred against them. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.