KAILASHCHANDRA TEJPAL Vs. VINOD GULJARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ECode') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23 -12 -1988 rendered by Vlth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Indore in COS No. 89 -A/86 thereby passing the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short the 'Act') together with mesne profits @Rs. 115/ - per months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the suit -house No. 30, Bada Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the Joint Family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Guljarilal. On partition by a registered partition deed dated 25 -2 -1953, this suit house fell to the share of Guljarilal. The respondents are the sons of late Guljarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. The respondents came with a case that the appellant occupied the first -floor and one room on the ground -floor as the licensee of the respondents. This licence was terminated by notices dated 9 -4 -1978 and 20 -6 -1978. The possession was demanded. The bona fide requirement was also asserted. The appellant disputed the allegation. It was pleaded that the appellant occupied the suit -premises in the capacity of a tenant and not as a licensee right from the time of partition. It was also pleaded that there was no bona fide requirement. The issue No. 1 as regards the licence, was not pressed by the respondents and was given up. The case was contested only on the ground of tenancy and ground of eviction under the Act. On evaluation of evidence, the trial Court found that the accommodation was required bona fide for occupation as residence and that there was no resonably suitable residential accommodation of their own in the city concerned. On this conclusion, the trial Court granted a decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act. It was also directed that the mesne profits @ Rs. 115/ - P.M. shall be paid from the date of judgment till delivery of possession.

(3.) I have heard Shri Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Shri S. L. Jain for the appellant and Shri H.S. Oberai, learned counsel for the respondent.