RAM PUKAR SINGH Vs. BHIMSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL is heard on the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against defendant/appellant in respect of the suit premises comprised in Survey No. 83/1 situated in Municipal Ward No. 10 of Sidhi, Amha. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit house is owned by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 who has been unwell physically and mentally for last number of years and due to this the suit house is being lookedafter by the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 being his wife. It is further pleaded that the suit house was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff's @ Rs. 100 per month as rent. Some 15 years before the institution of the suit, the rent was increased from time to time and finally the same became payable at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the year 1990. It is further pleaded that the rent is due w. e. f. March, 1991. The defendant is residing in the Government quarter No. 3 after its allotment in his favour. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit premises is required bonafide by them for residing therein as they want to reside permanently in the city of Sidhi on account of availability of the facilities pertaining to education of the children and medical. It is also stated in the plaint that the disputed premises is in dilapidated condition and the plaintiffs went to reconstruct it after demolition of the existing accommodation. The defendant/appellant submitted his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff's. They inter alia contended that they are not aware of the title of the house stated to be situated in Survey No. 83/1. It is further stated that a kachha house is situated in Survey No. 81 of Village Amha which was obtained by the defendant/appellant on rent @ Rs. 40 per month from plaintiff No. 1 and one person named Ganga Prasad. It was disclosed at that time that the said house belonged to Ganga Prasad. It was settled as per the defendant that he would pay the rent to the defendant No. 1 for the said Ganga Prasad. As regards the arrears of rent, it is stated in the written statement that the defendant paid the rent upto May, 1993 in a regular manner to the plaintiff No. 1 and is further prepared to pay rent w. e. f. June, 1993. As regards, allotment of Government quarter No. 3 to the defendant, it is stated in the written statement that the quarter was allotted to the defendant in the year 1991 which was not sufficient for the entire family of the defendant. Defendant is still residing in the suit house and the Government quarter has been occupied by the sons of the defendant. It is further submitted in the written statement that the plaintiffs are holding agricultural land in the Village Bhuimad and there is no occasion for the plaintiffs to reside at Sidhi without any occupation. The defendant has further set up a defence that an agreement of sale by the plaintiff No. 1 in favour of defendant was arrived at in the month of June, 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ -. Since, the defendant was going to purchase the suit premises, he with the consent of the plaintiff No. 1 made repairs by spending Rs. 20,000/ -. After such construction/repairs, the condition of the suit house is quite good and is not of dilapidated one. It is further stated that on account of escalation in the price, the plaintiff No. 1 became dishonest and he is demanding a consideration. The defendant having denied to accept the request of defendant No. 1 has thus, been wrongly sued under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control act for eviction.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge raised various issues including issues pertaining to creation of tenancy between plaintiffs and defendants @ Rs. 300/- per month and also pertaining to bonafide need of the plaintiffs.