RAJARAM DEAD Vs. GANPATLAL VAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent inter alia on the grounds that the tenant did not pay or tender arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of notice of damand within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of equivalent Citation: the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), which was then in force and which governs the suit, and also on the ground that the landlord genuinely requires the accommodation for his own business and residence within the meaning of Section 4 (1) (g) of the Act.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the appellants contending that they had been sending money orders one after another to the plaintiff, who went on refusing them. They sent a money order after receipt of notice also. That too came back from the post office with the endorsement of refusal as before. They further contended that the plaintiff did not genuinely require the suit accommodation for his business or residence.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit on the second ground, but held in favour of the plaintiff on the first ground. In the result, it passed a decree for eviction. The defendants appealed. The plaintiff in the first appeal Court again pressed his ground of genuine requirement. The first appeal Court elaborately discussed the evidence on record on this point and held that the plaintiff neither genuinely required the accommodation for residence of himself or his family, nor did be genuinely require it for his business as he had sufficient and suitable accommodation both for business and residence. The first appeal Court observed in connection with both the parts of this contention that the plaintiff "everywhere tried to suppress things which were likely to go against him. " It affirmed the judgment of the trial Court with regard to the ground of genuine requirement within the meaning of Clauses (g) and (h) of Section 4 (1) of the Act. On the first ground i. e. default in payment of rent in spite of notice, the first appeal Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court and maintained the decree for eviction.