PREM KAUR AHUJA Vs. SARDAR KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction in respect of the ground floor of the house occupied by him as a tenant has been passed.

(2.) THE respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction originally on the grounds of nuisance, arrears of rent and material alteration. By amendment dated 31-7-1979 the landlord added the ground of bond fide requirement on the allegation that his son who is working in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board has been transferred to Jabalpur. Both the courts have ordered eviction on the grounds of nuisance, bona fide need and material alteration by making unauthorised construction of a wall and converting verandah into a room. The second appeal was admitted by this court on 28-9-1993 on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) THE first question comprises of the three grounds upon which the eviction was ordered by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 12 (l) (m) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred as the Act') the material alteration will afford a ground for eviction only when it is to the detriment of the landlord's interest or is likely to diminish its value substantially. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the landlord urged the ground of material alteration on the supposition that the Corporation can penalise him for the unauthorised constructions and the construction affects light and air to the inner portion of the house; that while arriving at the finding the Courts below have not taken into consideration the mandatory requirement under Section 12, clause (10) of the Act; that though the trial Court passed the decree under Section 12 (l) (c) of the Act on the ground of nuisance, the lower appellate Court has reversed that finding, that there is no discussion on Issue No. 4 with regard to the nuisance; that therefore, it should be deemed that the ground of nuisance is not made out and the bona fide need of the landlord no longer exists in view of the facts that even after the transfer of the landlord's son to Jabalpur he did not occupy the first floor of the house; that the grand children of the landlord were taking education wherever his son was working; that the plaintiff alone is residing now in the first floor of the house and as such the ground of bona fide requirement is not substantiated.