NARENDRAKUMAR BASANTILAL Vs. RADHAKISHAN CHUNNILAL RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendant against judgment and decree dated 31-3-1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby a decree for eviction has been passed on ground under section 12 (l) (e)of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), after reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit for ejectment passed by the trial Court on 21-4-1977.

(2.) FACTS essential for decision of this appeal are as under: it is no longer in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff has purchased the house, of which the suit premises are a part, vide sale-deed dated 2-11-1973 (Ex. P-l ). Prior to purchase of the said house by the plaintiff, the defendant as well as the plaintiff were occupying the respective portions in their possession as tenants of the ex-landlord, Kanta Prasad gupta. The plaintiff brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on grounds under section 12 (l) (e)and (c) of the Act on the allegations that the defendant is residing in the suit premises, which consist of three rooms and paying rent at the rate of Rs. 25/-per month. Now the case of the plaintiff is that he bonafidely requires the suit premises for his residence along with members of his family, that the portion in his possession is insufficient for the purpose and that there is no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own within the municipal limits of Shajapur for the purpose, and that the defendant has substantially damaged the suit premises and also hurling abuses day in and ' day out on the plaintiff and members of his family.

(3.) THE claim of the plaintiff for eviction was resisted by the defendant on the grounds that the alleged requirement is not bona fide, that the portion in occupation of the plaintiff is sufficient and that the allegations regarding damaging the suit premises substantially and hurling of abuses by the defendant are false. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit for ejectment. Aggrieved by this judgment, and decree, the plaintiff preferred appeal, which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and decree for eviction has been granted on ground under section 12 (1) (e) of the act and the ground under section 12 (1 ) (c) has been negatived. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal.