NANDKISHORE Vs. SARJUDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Letters Patent Appeal upon a certificate granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the question raised is as to the interpretation of section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It is directed against the decree, dated 9-4-1973, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Second Appeal No. 274 of 1971, arising out of the decree, 14-10-1971, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil First Appeal No. 11-A of 1971, arising out of the original decree, dated 16-11-1970 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Ujjain, in Civil Suit No. 192 A of 1969.

(2.) THE relevant facts for understanding the question involved in this appeal are as follows. The respondent is the landlord of house bearing Municipal No. 1/302/b, situated in the city of Ujjain. The predecessor of the appellants', Pannalal, was the tenant, who held two different portions of the house as a tenant on a monthly rent under two separate contracts of tenancy. One of them related to the residential accommodation, while the other related to the non-residential accommodation for business purposes. The monthly rent of the residential accommodation was Rs. 5/- while that of the non-residential accommodation was Rs. 7/- per month. The respondent filed a suit for eviction on 16-10-1968, for evicting the tenant from both the portions. The learned Civil Judge, by judgment, dated 16-11-1970, dismissed the entire suit for residential as also for non-residential accommodation. The respondent, therefore, being aggrieved by that judgment filed Civil First Appeal no. 11/a/ of 1971, which was partly allowed. The learned Additional district Judge decreed the respondent's claim in respect of non-residential accommodation, but dismissed it with respect to the residential accommodation. The legal representatives of the tenant, therefore, filed Second Appeal no. 274 of 1971 and the respondent landlord filed Second Appeal 298 of 1971. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the tenant's appeal and allowed the landlord's appeal. As such, the decree in respect of residential accommodation in favour of the landlord has become final and in the present appeal we are only concerned with the decree relating to nonresidential accommodation, which the legal representatives of the original tenant challenged on the grounds to be discussed presently.

(3.) IT may be relevant to reproduce the provisions of clause 13 (3) (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, which is as follows: