DEVENDRA CHAUDHARY Vs. WARSILAL DUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of defendants -tenants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2001 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Neemuch, in First Appeal No. 22 -A/2001. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff -landlord was allowed and dismissal of the suit as ordered by the trial Court was set aside and a decree for eviction under S. 12(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was granted.

(2.) RESPONDENT (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for eviction against appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') on the allegation that he is the owner and landlord of the Shop No. 6 situated on Mhow Nasirabad Road, Neemuch (hereinafter referred to as 'suit shop' for short). It was let out to defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 800/ - (Rs. Eight hundred) for commercial purposes for running office and sale of machinery parts. Although tenancy commenced from 1.9.1988, but a Rent Note was executed on 1.10.1988. Under the rent note a sum of Rs. 22,000/ - (Rupees Twenty two thousand only) was deposited by the defendants -tenants as security deposit for payment of rent. According to the plaintiff, defendants were irregular in payment of monthly rent. They had not paid rent for 58 months from September, 1989 to June, 1994 and defendants were in arrears amounting to Rs.46,400/ -. Even after adjusting security deposit and other sum which were paid by the tenants, still Rs. 14,400/ - was outstanding as arrear up to June, 1994. The tenancy was determined by the plaintiff by registered notice dated 25.11.1991. Even after determination of tenancy, defendants neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit in the year 1994 claiming eviction together with arrears of rent. Plaintiff had also set up bona fide need of his major son Harjeet Singh, who holds a BE degree and is working as a Civil Contractor, for running office in the suit shop. It was also alleged that in 1991 defendants put locks in the suit shop and did not use suit premises for more than six month. Thus, initially eviction was sought under S. 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (f) of the Act, however, during the trial plaintiff amended the plaint and also sought eviction under S. 12(1) (c) of the Act on the plea that contrary to the terms and conditions of the Rent Note, defendants allowed to set up an STD booth in the suit shop. The plaintiff also pleaded that his major son bad obtained a premises on monthly rent of Rs. 650/ - (Rupees six hundred fifty) and had opened his office in the said premises w.e.f. 15.8.1998.

(3.) AFTER appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, as adduced by the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit on each count. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff preferred the first appeal, which was allowed by the lower appellate Court and a decree of eviction was granted under S. 12(1) (a), (b), (c) of the Act as mentioned hereinabove.