PRADEEP SHRIVASTAVA Vs. PRATIBHA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has filed the appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.9.2009 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) Guna (Shri Rajiv M. Apte) in Civil Suit No.57-A of 2009 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction under section 12 (1)(a) M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act') and for recovery of arrears of rent. In this appeal, the appellant is referred as 'defendant' and respondent as 'plaintiff'.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the appellant/defendant is the tenant in the disputed premises and he is carrying his business in this shop. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for his eviction from the tenanted premises and recovery of arrears of rent, which has been decreed in her favour as stated earlier.

(3.) Facts, in brief, of the plaint are that the suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff by the plaintiff's son Pradeep Kumar Goyal who was having Power of Attorney against the defendant stating therein that the plaintiff owns a house in Ward No.17 Nagarpalika, Guna and the appellant/defendant was the tenant of the premises paying rent @ Rs.3450/- per month. The tenancy given on monthly basis commences from the first day of the every calender month and terminates on the last day of the calender month. The agreement of tenancy was oral. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the appellant/defendant did not pay rent after June, 2004 onwards and even on the request made by the plaintiff for payment of rent, the defendant did not turn up and pay any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff served a written notice dated 5.10.2006 to the defendant seeking due rent on the address of defendant's shop but the defendant did not receive the same and it was sent back to the plaintiff. Thereafter, another notice was sent on 31.10.2006 on the defendant's residential address as well as at the address of shop terminating the tenancy as well as demanding the arrears of rent of the tenanted premises. But after receiving the said notices neither any reply was given by the defendant nor was the tenanted premises vacated and nor arrears of rent paid. Hence, the suit was filed for eviction and recovery of due amount of rent i.e. Rs.1,14,350 including mense profit and costs etc against the defendant.