JAIDEOSINGH PAL Vs. NIRMALABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff -respondent tiled the present suit for eviction against the defendant -appellant from the tenanted residential accommodation on the grounds (i) that the defendant failed to pay arrears of rent within two months of the service of notice of demand upon him; (ii) that the plaintiff bona fide requires the tenanted accommodation for rebuilding and such rebuilding cannot be carried without the accommodation being vacated and that after rebuilding the plaintiff house use the accommodation for her residence and for the residence of members of her family. It is not necessary to state other grounds on which the eviction was sought by the plaintiff because they have been decided against her. The defendant resisted the suit, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's claim under section 12 (1) (a) (b) and (h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On appeal by the defendant, the appellate Court maintained the decree for eviction on the other grounds under section 12 (1) (h) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate Court the defendant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellate Court has committed an error of law in not giving directions as required by section 18 of the act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has force. When the appellate Court passed the decree for eviction only on the ground under section 12 (1) (h) of the Act it was obligatory upon it under section 18 of the Act to ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the accommodation and to make suitable directions accordingly. On being asked by me the learned counsel for the appellant -tenant stated that the defendant elects to be put in possession of the tenanted accommodation. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the defendant would deliver the vacant possession of the tenanted accommodation on or before 31 -12 -1984. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent stated that the plaintiff will complete the reconstruction of the accommodation within one year. Appeal partly allowed.