ASHOK KUMAR Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28-3-2007 passed by XVI ADJ (Fast Track), Indore in Civil Appeal No. 4/2006 whereby judgment dated 14-5-2004 passed by VIII Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 94-A/2004 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") was decreed in part so far as it relates to arrears of rent and was dismissed so far as it relates to eviction was modified by passing the decree of eviction, the present appeal has been filed. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 28-7-2008 on the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the suit accommodation against the appellant alleging that respondent has letted out the suit accommodation to the appellant on rent @ Rs. 200/- per month. It was alleged that it was agreed between the parties that rent shall be enhanced after completion of one year by 10%. It was further alleged that appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-4-1997. It was alleged that notice was issued to the appellant for demand of arrears of rent on 12-4-1999 but no rent was tendered by the appellant. It was alleged that respondent requires the suit accommodation bonafidely. The suit was contested by the appellant alleging that appellant was tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 40/- per month. It was denied that appellant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-4-1997. It was alleged that the appellant has never received any notice from the respondent. It was denied that appellant is in arrears of rent. It was alleged that appellant has already paid the rent upto December, 2000 and rent thereafter has not been accepted by the respondent. In the written statement it was also alleged that the respondent is the co-owner of the suit property. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Trial Court decreed the suit so far as arrears of rent is concerned and dismissedthe suit so far as it relates eviction against which the appeal was filed the respondent which was allowed and the decree of eviction was also passed against the appellant against which present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that respondent himself has not stated that notice was duly served on the appellant. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no decree of eviction could have been passed against the appellant. Learned Counsel submits that since Surendra Kumar Modi, who happens to be the brother of respondent is one of the co-owner of the suit accommodation claiming rights over the suit property, therefore, learned Appellate Court committed error in passing the decree of arrears of rent against the appellant. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court be set aside.