AFSAR ARA Vs. FAHIM AHMED QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2007, passed in regular Civil Appeal No.257-A/2006 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Bhopal (Fast Track), in the appeal filed by the defendant/respondent No.1, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2006 passed in regular Civil Suit No.45-A/ 2005 of the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law.-

(2.) The sole question which is to be examined is whether the appellant who is also entitled to claim herself being a specified landlady under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) as defined under Section 23-J was also entitled to file a suit for eviction of the tenant under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act or not before the Civil Court, and whether a decree could be granted for eviction of a tenant under the aforesaid provisions by the Civil Court or such jurisdiction is barred under the provisions of Section 45 of the Act.

(3.) Undisputedly, the appellant is a widow. She claimed to be the landlady of the respondent-tenant. It was alleged that the suit property was obtained in partition by the late husband of the appellant. After the death of husband, who expired on 30.9.1986, the appellant needed the suit accommodation for the purposes of starting a business for the major son of the appellant. It was also alleged that the respondent-tenant was in arrears of rent for many months and despite the demand, the rent was not paid. The respondent-tenant has sub-let the suit accommodation to the respondent No.2 without the consent of the appellant and, therefore, a composite suit for eviction of the tenant was filed. The suit was contested by the respondentdefendant on the grounds that the rent of the suit accommodation was paid, it was denied that suit shop was sub-let to the respondent/defendant No.2. It was contended that the enhanced rate of the rent was being paid by the respondent/defendant. It was contended that for the bonafide need of the suit shop in fact the appellant should have filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority. This being so, it was contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed.