KANHAIYALAL VERMA Vs. DROPADI SEETARAM GATTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by defendant-tenant, who was unsuccessful in two courts below, was admitted for final hearing by order dt. 25-2-1988 :-

(2.) The plaintiff-presented suit for eviction against the defendant on grounds under Clauses (c) and (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act) - plaintiff's case briefly stated was that defendant was earlier tenant in three rooms of ground floor of House No. 680, Dhan Gali Mhow, of the earlier owners of house No. 680 named Sarfuddin and Chhuttan. The house was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale deed dt. 15-5-1979 from earlier owners Sarfuddin and Chhuttan and thereafter the defendant attorned the plaintiff as his landlady and paid her monthly rent Rs. 34/-. Portion occupied by the defendant is shown in the map with letters 'Aa', Ba 'Sa' and 'Da'. The plaintiff's case is that in the portion occupied by the defendent there is a common toilet, bathroom, staircase and drain which the occupants of the other portions of house i.e. plaintiff landlady, her husband and children are also entitled to use. The plaintiff was also entitled to make use of common electricity connection. The defendant, however, did not allow the plaintiff, her husband and children to make use of the staircase and toilet and interfered with the same plaintiff had, therefore, filed another civil suit No. 25-A/78 claiming permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant had made false allegation against son of the landlady leading to registration of a criminal case. The defendant unnecessarily quarrels with the plaintiff and his behaviour is objectionable. The plaintiff also claimed that defendant was in arrears of rent but now the point does no survive for consideration. The plaintiff further claimed that the portion occupied by the defendant was required bona fide by the plaintiff for herself and members of her family and that she was not possessed of any other alternative accommodation of her own in the town of Mhow.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit of various grounds. While not disputing that he was tenant of the plaintiff landlady the defendant submitted that under agreement with earlier owners of the house No. 680, the defendant has been exclusively using the toilet, bathroom and staircase and this was to the knowledge of the plaintiff and her husband. Bona fide requirement of the plaintiff in respect of the accommodation was said to be false and the suit filed with an ulterior motive. The plaintiff was possessed of another alternative suitable accommodation for herself and her family and her husband had in the house at Chhota Bazar Mhow vacant possession of three rooms from another tenant Narayanlal. It was also pleaded that defendant was obtaining electricity from the neighbouring house. Claim of arrears of rent made by the plaintiff was said to have been adjusted as per particulars of para 6 of the written-statement. Nuisance as alleged by the plaintiff was denied. It was submitted that plaintiff's son had been caught committing theft in the house of the defendant and for this reason criminal case was lodged against him. It was also submitted that on the allegations of nuisance another Civil suit No. 25-A/78 had been filed in the court and therefore, under S. 10 of Civil P.C. this suit could not proceed and ought to be stayed.