RAJESH MALVIYA Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22 -4 -2014, passed by XIV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in C.A.No. 259/2012 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 3 -7 -2012, passed by XVIII Civil Judge Class -2, Bhopal, in C.S. No. 510/2011, whereby the suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed under the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the suit under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act has been decreed by the courts below by recording a finding to the effect that the accommodation in question was let out for residential purposes but it was being used by the appellant for non -residential purposes without obtaining due approval or permission of the landlord. It is submitted that the courts below have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has himself applied for commercial electricity connection in the accommodation while it was let out to the appellant and, therefore, it is clear that the accommodation was in fact let out for non - residential purposes. It is further stated that the appellant by way of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. had sought to bring the said document on record before the appellate Court but the same has been rejected. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record, it is observed that the courts below have decreed the suit on the grounds mentioned under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act. The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the appellant is in arrears of rent from 1 -8 -2010 to 28 -2 -2011. Nothing has been pointed out or placed before this Court to indicate that the said finding is perverse or not based on material on record. In the circumstances, it is apparent that no fault can be found with the decree of eviction against the appellant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as admittedly the appellant was and is in arrears of rent.