T R SAH Vs. KUNDAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 20-3-1996 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/95 affirming the judgment and decree dated 1-5-1995 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 35-A/93 decreeing the eviction suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents under Section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 5-5-1997 on the following substantial question of law:-

(3.) PLAINTIFFS Sadhu Singh (since dead) instituted a civil suit (C. S. No. 35-A/87/1993) for eviction of his tenant (the defendant/appellant) from the suit premises known as "walia House", Idgah Hills, Bhopal, which had been let-out for residential purpose, on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. He alleged that the suit premises was required bona fide for the occupation of himself and his family and that they had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of their own in their occupation in the city of Bhopal; and that the roof of the suit premises had become damaged, as the premises was situated on a slope, and constant flow of rain water directly on the Building had damaged the roof and that the Engineer had expressed an opinion that the roof requires to be dismantled for necessary repair. The plaintiff also alleged that he was residing in a rented premises and his landlord had initiated eviction proceedings against him. 3. 1. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff (Sadhu Singh) died and his legal representatives, namely, widow, five sons and seven daughters (respondents herein) came on record and continued the proceedings. They amended the plaint alleging that respondents 1 and 11 were residing with Sardar Sadhu Singh in a rented premises and an eviction decree has been passed against them in RCS No. 69-A/86 on the file of II Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal and therefore they required the suit premises for their residential purpose. 3. 2. The defendant/appellant denied the need put forth by the landlord. The learned Trial Judge framed appropriate issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit on 1-5-1995 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the grounds mentioned in Section 12 (1) (e), (g) and (h) of the Act, were established. 3. 3. The tenant (appellant) challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal in RCA No. 8-A/95. The learned IX Addl. District Judge, Bhopal by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal in part. He affirmed the decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Act but set aside the decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (g) and (h) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Legal Question