RADHESHYAM Vs. RAMAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal, at the instance of appellant/tenant, is directed against the judgment and decree in First Appeal No. 13 of 2000, decided on 20-8-2001 by the XIII Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore. By the impugned judgment and decree, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in C. S. No. 43-A of 1994 was reversed.

(2.) RESPONDENT/plaintiff instituted the eviction suit against the appellant/defendant on allegation, that former is owner of the house bearing No. 128 (old) situated in Subhash Nagar, Indore and plaintiff let out two rooms on the ground floor for residential purposes to the appellant on payment of Rs. 85/- as monthly rent. Tenancy was monthly, starting from 1st of every English calendar month. Initially plaintiff claimed eviction under Section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). Plaintiff set up the bona fide need of the suit accommodation not only for himself but also members of his family. It was alleged that looking to growing family, the tenanted accommodation in possession of the plaintiff/respondent was not, sufficient to meet the requirement. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent needed the suit accommodation on his personal health ground and there was no other suitable accommodation of his own in the city of Indore. Thus he prayed for decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. During the pendency of suit, by way of amendment plaintiff also sought eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (d) of the Act on allegations that appellant and family members created nuisance and that suit accommodation was sub-let and remained unused without any reasonable cause for which it was let out for continuous period of six months since June, 1993.

(3.) APPELLANT/defendant denied the case set up by the plaintiff/respondent and submitted that the bona fide need of the plaintiff and his family members was sham need. It was set up to extract higher monthly rent. It was also alleged that during the pendency of suit, respondent/plaintiff obtained vacant possession of other portions on the house that were let out to other tenant, therefore, need if any, stands satisfied. As regards the other grounds for eviction, their existence was denied. Thus, according to defendant, plaintiff was not entitled to eviction decree on any of the count and he prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs throughout.