DINDAYAL PACHURI Vs. VIMALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's appeal against a decree for eviction passed against him.

(2.) THE facts are that the plaintiff Vimalchand is the landlord of the suit accommodation which is a shop. Dindayal is his tenant and Punitram is a subtenant of the tenant. Dindayal carries on business of a watch repairer in a part of the shop and has sub-let the other part to Punitram who carries on laundry business. The original landlord of the shop was one Gulraj, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Vimalchand. The plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal against Dindayal and Punitram for eviction on two grounds: first, that the tenant has unlawfully sub-let a part of the accommodation to punitram; and secondly, that the accommodation is needed by the plaintiff for opening a cloth shop. The defence of the tenant Dindayal was that the shop was sub-let to Punitram with the consent of the original landlord Gulraj and that the sub-letting was not unlawful. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff's need is not genuine. The trial court as well as the first appellate Court held in favour of the plaintiff that the grounds under Clauses (b) and (f) of Section 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961, were made out and the suit was decreed. The tenant Dindayal, thereafter, filed the present second appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the tenant did sub-let a part of the shop to Punitram. His contention is that the sub-letting was with the implied consent of the predecessor landlord Gulraj and, therefore, not unlawful within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act.