NARESH CHAND Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1981, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 13-A of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1976, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Bhind, in Civil Suit No. 109 of 1969.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff against the defendant was on the following allegations. The plaintiff owns a shop at Parent Bazar, Bhind and the defendant is occupying the same on the basis of a rent-note executed by him on 3.10.1962. The rent-note is for a period of eleven months. The purpose for which the shop was given on rent was for doing business of both and the rent to be paid was Rs. 87.50. After taking the shop on rent. It is alleged that the defendant started residing in the said shop. Not only this, but in one portion of the said, shop defendant No. 1 kept one Lakhmichand son of Gulzarilal, the owner of the firm Lakhmichand Nareshchand at Rs. 33 per month as Shikami tenant. The alleged sub-tenant is doing business in ropes. This giving of the portion of the shop on rent was against the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act)'. On both the grounds, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of eviction. The grounds are that the defendant has kept a sub-tenant and the defendant has changed the purpose for which the shop was taken on rent. A notice was served on the defendant on 2.9.1969 by which the tenancy of the defendants was terminated from 2.10.1969. For the period for which the rent was not paid, the learned counsel demanded also the arrears by the said notice. But, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act the claim was not pressed before me as no decree was granted by the Courts below on that grounds as the defendant have complied with the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act and as such, no decree can be passed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. This finding was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

(3.) ON these allegations and counter allegations, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-