ABDUL HAMID Vs. SAMAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Civil Appeal No. 8-A. of 1979, partly maintaining the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Class, II, Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 181-A of 1976 decreeing the landlord-plaintiff Samad Khan's suit ejecting the tenant-defendant Abdul Hamid on the grounds of his having fallen in arrears of rent and the landlord requiring the accommodation bonafide for the purpose of re-building or making substantial additions and alterations and they being incapable of being carried out without the accommodation being first vacated, though not on the ground that the landlord had needed the premises bonafide for his own residence and that of the members of his family.

(2.) THE premises situated in the town of Neemuch and originally belonged to Haji Kallukhan and Haji Rustamkhan. The defendant appellant Abdul Hamid was their tenant at Rs. 10 per month. The premises were bought by one Munnibai (the mother of the landlord-plaintiff-respondent from Haji Kallukhan and Haji Rustamkhan by a registered sale deed on 24.10.1974. This Munnibai died leaving the landlord-plaintiff as her sole heir. The defendant paid rent only upto 30.4.1975 but not after wards. He till 31.8.1976 had fallen into arrears of Rs. 160 which he did not pay to the landlord even after repeated demands. The premises had become dilapidated and it was necessary for getting rebuilt after getting the premises vacated. The landlord needed the premises for his own residence and the members of his family bonafide and he did not have any alternative premises of his own in the town. These were the grounds (under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(h) and 12(1)(e) or the M.P. Accommodation Control Act respectively) on which the plaintiff-landlord based his claim before the Civil Judge Class II, Neemuch.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the trial Court holding for the landlord decreed his suit on all the three grounds. The tenant thereupon appealed to the Additional District Judge, Neemuch but only partly successfully. The learned Judge of first appellate Court though set aside the finding regarding the requirement of the landlord of the premises bonafide for his own residence and that of the members of his family concurring with the findings of the trial Judge on other two grounds, maintained the judgment and decree of the trial Judge on those grounds.