SUDHIR TIWARI Vs. BHAGWANTI DEVI ISSRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by defendant/tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 735/2000, dated 3-1-2002. The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but has refused decree to the plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (c), (k) and (m) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' ). The learned Single Judge has confirmed the decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act and has also granted decree to the plaintiff-respondent under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellant is tenant of the plaintiff on the ground floor of house Nos. 1243 and 1244, Wright Town, Jabalpur at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- p. m. as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 1-10-1992 (Ex. P-1 ). The premises were taken for non-residential purposes to run a clinic and the defendant was permitted to carry out repairs to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for which an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was paid to him in cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,0007- was to be adjusted in rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. The defendant was required to keep the accommodation in "good and tenantable repairs" and handover the same to the plaintiff in the same condition in which it was at the time of letting, the period of tenancy was eleven months, which was renewable at the option of the defendant for a further period of eleven months and thereafter for seven months more but not later than 31-3-1995. The defendant was specifically not allowed to make any additions or alterations without the written consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's husband was practising as an Advocate and both were living in this accommodation before it was let out. At the time of letting out the suit accommodation on 1-10-1992, the plaintiffs husband Justice K. L. Issrani was a Judge of this Court and he was living in a Government bungalow and after sometime he was transferred to Orissa High Court. He retired from that High Court on 19-3-1995. Presently, plaintiff and her husband are residing in a rented house at Jabalpur. The plaintiff or her husband has no other house at Jabalpur. It is not in dispute that one room on the first floor of the disputed accommodation is in possession of the plaintiff in which her husband is doing "chamber practice". The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that previously she was also running classes in tailoring and dress designing in the suit accommodation and her husband was practising as an Advocate and was having his office therein. She stopped doing so after her husband was appointed as a Judge of this Court. After the retirement of her husband, she bona fide requires the suit accommodation for running the classes in tailoring and dress designing. She does not have any other accommodation for this purpose at Jabalpur. Her husband would start legal practice on the first floor of this house. Her husband wants to start his legal practice but the defendant has closed the passage and has put the waste material of the hospital with the result that the husband of the plaintiff is not able to go to the first floor and use the above said room for his legal work and is also unable to use library which is existing in that room. The plaintiffs husband is required to go through the compounder's room which has an opening leading to the staircase and for that he is required to take the permission of the defendant or his staff and suffer their annoyance. Many a times, plaintiff's husband has to face misbehaviour of the defendant and his staff and this amounts to nuisance. The allegations are also made regarding substantial damage to the suit accommodation and tenant having made material additions and alterations, but on this ground the learned Trial Court has refused the decree which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) THE defendant in the written-statement has denied the allegations of the plaint and has stated that the plaintiff was never running the classes in tailoring or dress designing in the suit accommodation. In fact, the plaintiff and her husband were residing in the suit accommodation and one room of the accommodation was used by the plaintiff's husband as his office. The accommodation was let out to him tor non-residential purposes. The plaintiffs alleged need is an afterthought and a false plea to get the accommodation vacated. In fact, the plaintiff does not require the accommodation. She does not enjoy sound health. The defendant has also taken a plea that the plaintiff in the presence of her husband orally agreed to give adjustment of the amount which was to be spent for modification and improvement in the building to suit the requirement of a modern clinic and the outer limit of such expenditure was agreed to be Rs. 2,00,000/- and defendant has actually spent this amount in this building to bring it in good shape and he is entitled to adjust the same. The defendant has also denied that he or his staff has ever misbehaved with the plaintiff's husband. Other allegations were also denied.