SAROJINI NIGAM Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the defendants/tenants against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No.112-A/1996 by the VII Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 5.7.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.139-A/1993 by the XIII Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, and has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction against the appellants/defendants-tenants on various grounds under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). In the plaint, it was contended that the respondents/plaintiffs have purchased the suit house by a registered sale deed. The fact relating to purchase of the house was brought to the notice of the appellants/defendants who were residing in the said house as tenants of the erstwhile owner of the house at the rent of Rs.20/- per month. In the plaint, it was alleged that the appellants/defendants have not paid the electricity charges or the rent to the respondents/plaintiffs in time. When a demand was made in this respect, the same was not complied with. The appellants have made an application for providing electricity connection to them, before the M.P. Electricity Board office at Bhopal, stating therein that the house in suit was belonging to somebody else, namely, Shri Laxmichand son of Ganga Prasad Nigam and that an electricity connection was to be provided to them. Thereby, the appellants have denied the title of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit house making themselves liable to be evicted from the said demise premises under the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. It was further contended that the house was bonafidely required by the respondents/plaintiffs for the purposes of reconstruction of the building for their own residence and shop. It was contended that for the purposes of reconstruction of the building, sanction was obtained from the Municipal Corporation Bhopal and sufficient funds were arranged by the respondents/plaintiffs. It was categorically pointed out that respondents/plaintiffs has a big family including wife and three children and since the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were also living jointly, having three children, sufficient accommodation was to be made for the purposes of residence. It was contended that the respondents/plaintiffs were already running shops in the adjoining part of the demise premises and for the said purposes, bonafidely the accommodation was needed. Therefore, the decree of eviction was claimed under Section 12(1)(h) and 12(1)(c) of the Act as well. It was further contended that while giving notice on 4.9.1993, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 30.9.1993, but since the vacant possession of the demise premises was not delivered, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) The appellants/defendants contested the suit on various grounds. They contended that the demise premises let out to the appellants was in the ownership of the respondents/ plaintiffs. It was denied that at any point of time any default was committed by the appellants in making payment of rent of the demise premises or that the electricity charges were not paid by them. They further denied that at any point of time, they made any application before the M.P. Electricity Board office at Bhopal, with respect to grant of electricity connection stating the name of somebody else as owner of the house in suit. They further contended that when they received the notice of eviction issued by the respondents/plaintiffs, they submitted their reply and stated that by changing the name respondents/plaintiffs were trying to evict the appellants. The plea of bona fide need for residence was denied. It was denied that there was any sanction granted for construction of the building in place of demise premises. It was further contended that the respondents/plaintiffs were residing with their mother jointly and as they have the sufficient accommodation to reside, only on a false pretext just to make a ground for eviction, such allegations were made in the plaint. Thus, it was claimed that the suit was liable to be dismissed.