JYOTI SHARMA Vs. HASH VISHNU GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal under Sec. 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 13/10/2009 passed by Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2009 arising out of Judgment and decree dtd. 30/04/2007 passed by 5t h Civil Judge, Class - 1, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2007.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff ) filed a suit for eviction u/s 12(1)(a)(c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'Act') and arrears of rent against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) narrating therein that the plaintiff owns a house situated at Hanuman Chouraha, Lashkar, Gwalior bearing Municipal House No. 45/26. The said house has been owned by the plaintiff by virtue of a Will dtd. 12/5/99 executed by her father-in-law, Shri Ramjidas Sharma. Tenanted shop is situated at ground floor of aforesaid house wherein, father of defendants, Late Shri Kishanlal has been inducted as tenant on 9/11/53 by father-in-law of plaintiff. After demise of Late Shri Kishanlal, defendants have become tenant in the shop at the rate of Rs.300.00 per month. The defendants have paid the rent promptly till December, 1999, thereafter, they have been constant defaulter even after repeated request since January, 2000. So, the arrears of rent for 22 months i.e till the date of filing a suit (October, 2001) is Rs.6,600.00.

(3.) It has further been pleaded in the plaint that the husband of plaintiff has already been running a shop of sweets, namkeen, gajak etc. adjoining to eastern side of tenanted premises and the same shop has been given to the minor sons of plaintiff through a Will dtd. 12/5/99. Husband of plaintiff alongwith his father since his lifetime has been running the business of sweets, namkeen, gajak etc. Plaintiff is also willing to start the same above mentioned business of sweets, namkeen, gajak etc. with the aid of her husband, and, for this very business, plaintiff requires the tenanted shop bonafide as she is not available with any non-residential accommodation within the municipal limits. Plaintiff has further pleaded about the convenience, suitability and feasibility of the tenanted shop for her business in paragraph 6 of plaint. Plaintiff has also pleaded about non-suitability of an another available accommodation owned by her husband in context of its' present usage.