DAYARAM CHOUHAN Vs. CHAGGANLAL PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-landlord. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2011 had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) FACTS giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground that he had purchased the suit accommodation vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.1994. The defendant is in occupation of the suit accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. Despite notices dated 05.2.1996 and 15.2.1996, the defendant failed to tender arrears of rent. It was pleaded that the plaintiff requires the suit accommodation for his son who is of marriageable age and wants to reside separately. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has no suitable alternative accommodation. It was also pleaded that the suit house is in dilapidated condition and repairs cannot be carried out without getting the accommodation vacated. Accordingly, the decree for eviction under sections 12(1)(a), (e) and (g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') was sought.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the defendant preferred an appeal. The plaintiff also filed cross objection. The lower appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 23.12.1999, inter alia, held that there was dispute between the parties with regard to rate of rent which was not decided by the trial Court and, therefore, the obligation of tenant to deposit the rent in terms of section 13(1) of the Act remained in abeyance. It was further held that since the tenant has deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay should have been allowed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court also held that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of section 12(3) of the Act. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court with regard to grounds of eviction under section 12(1)(e) & (g) of the Act.