GOPAL PRASAD TIWARI Vs. SADHANA SINGH TOMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dtd. 20/3/2023 passed by learned Fifth Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No.28-A/19 arising out of judgment dtd. 30/4/2019 in Civil Suit No.109-A/2014 by IV th Civil Judge, Class I, Indore (M.P.) whereby the decree of eviction has been passed against the appellant/tenant/defendant on the ground of Sec. 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2.) The facts as mentioned before the trial Court are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the civil suit on 14/10/2014 for the vacant possession of the portion of house no.21, Main Street, Mhow, Indore that was in the possession of defendant/appellant on the ground of 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Act, 1961 claiming that the defendant/appellant is the tenant of suit accommodation at the rate of Rs.2500.00 per month rent on the basis of rent note dtd. 1/2/2008 from the husband of the respondent/plaintiff. The death of husband of plaintiff was occurred in the year 2010. An Amount of Rs.97,500.00 is due for the period of 1/8/2011 to 31/7/2014 and the accommodation is required to bonafide for the purpose of starting business of clothe of his major son and no alternative accommodation is available in the city and the defendant has created the nuisance.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed his written statement admitting that he executed the agreement dtd. 1/2/2008 in favour of the plaintiff and her husband. Additionally, he submitted that after the death of Rajendra Singh, other heirs of Rajendra Singh have not been joined as plaintiff. The tenancy was started for the first time on 1/12/1985 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 was also deposited and that amount has not been returned to him. The agreement dtd. 4/2/2008 is in the nature of agreement to sale. The amount mentioned in the agreement has not been repaid to him. He never denied the tile of plaintiff. The plaintiff has not approach the Court with clean hands. She has created documents in the nature of gift deeds to show the absence of all suitable alternative accommodation and prayed for dismissal of suit.