CHHOTELAL Vs. NARMADA PRASAD SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-4-1981, passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 10-A of 1980, affirming the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1980, passed by the Ninth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 250-A of 1979.

(2.) The plaintiff brought a suit for eviction of the defendant-respondent from the suit premises contending that the plaintiff was the owner/ landlord of house No. 1313, situated in Ranghi ward, Jabalpur, a portion of which was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 20.00. The other portion of the said house was occupied by the plaintiff's son Pancham and his family. The plaintiff sought ejectment of the defendant on two grounds based under Sec. 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had not paid arrears of rent with effect from 1-5-1976 onwards despite service of demand notice, Ex. P-1, which was served by affixture on the door of the premises occupied by the defendant. The second ground was that the plaintiff required bona fide the suit accommodation for the residence of his other son Chhedilal and his family who was an employee of the Gun Garriage Factory but was residing in village Padwar which is quite away from the factory. It was also averred that village house was not convenient to Chhedilal for the reason that he was serving in the Gun Garriage Factory and there was no educational facilities in the village for education of sons of Chhedilal.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by contending that the plaintiff was not his landlord and his landlord was the plaintiff's son Panchamlal from whom he had been paying the rent to him. Regarding the arrears of rent, the defendant contended that a sum of Rs. 20.00 as rent for Oct. and Nov. 1977 was due from him which he had paid to Panchamlal on 12-11-1973 and that no rent was due w.e.f. 1-5.1976 as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the alleged bona fide requirement of the suit accommodation for the residence of Chhedilal and his family and contended that several blocks belonging to the plaintiff and his son had fallen vacant before the institution of the suit and during the pendency which were let out by the plaintiff and his son to other persons which indicated that no accommodation was required for the residence of Chhedilal at Jabalpur. The defendant also denied receipt of demand notice either by post or by of fixture.