PAHILAJRAI Vs. ARUNKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1978, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Indore, has allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent and dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for his eviction from the suit shop on grounds under section 12 (l) (a) and section 12 (l) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2.) FACTS material for decision of this appeal are as under: The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit giving rise to the present appeal against the defendant-respondent on the allegations that the defendant was inducted as a tenant by Purshottamdas (D. W. I), ex-landlod, in the suit premises, which are on the ground floor of house No. 25 Bada Sarafa, Indore, at the rent of rs. 200 per month; that the suit premises have been purchased by the plaintiff from the ex-landlord under a registered sale-deed dated 29-1-1972; that after purchase of the suit premises the defendant has paid rent to the plaintiff, vide counter-foils of rent receipts, Exs. P/6 to P/9, for the period between 1-2-1972 to 31-1-1973; that after serving the demand cum quit notice (Ex. P / 1, dated 7-1-1975) on the defendant vide Ex. P/5, dated 10-1-1975, the present suit has been brought on 20-3-1975, seeking eviction on grounds under section I2 (l) (a)of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the act), viz. , failure to pay or tender arrears of rent within two months in spite of service of notice of demand thereof on the defendant and that under section I2 (l) (f) of the Act, viz. , that the suit shop is genuinely required by the plaintiff for starting hotel business of his own, there being no other nonresidential accommodation of his own available for the purpose within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Indore.

(3.) THE defendant while admitting the factum of his induction as a tenant in the suit premises by Purshottamdas, resisted the claim on the ground that Narayandas, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, used to realise rent from him after passing receipts in the name of the plaintiff. On being asked the reason for doing so, Narayandas stated that the suit house has been purchased in the name of the plaintiff, who is his brother-in law (the lessor) that he does not know as to who has really purchased the suit premises and that the tenanted premises in respect of which the rent of Rs. 200 per month was to be paid by him consisted of two more rooms, the possession of which was handed over to Narayandas. Accordingly, in respect of the suit premises it was agreed that the defendant will pay Rs. 80 per month instead of Rs. 200 per month and that the notice to quit is bad in law because it is not for three months period as was agreed to between the parties.