MACHALA BAI Vs. NANAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant-defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2002 passed by the 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/01 by which the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2001 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 411-A/98 regarding dismissal of the suit has been set aside by decreeing the suit of respondent.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case are that respondent had filed a suit for eviction in respect of first floor of the house Nos. 954 to 957 situated at Lakarganj, Belbagh, Jabalpur against one Rameshwar Prasad, the brother of the appellant by impleading the appellant as defendant No. 2 as sub-tenant. On demise of Rameshwar Prasad the appellant has also contested the matter as legal representative of his brother. According to the plaint deceased- defendant said Rameshwar Prasad was the tenant @ Rs. 80/- per month. The suit was filed along with some other grounds available under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short the Act), including the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of the said Act, for non-residential bona fide genuine requirement regarding running business of bakery of the respondent, on the ground of insufficiency of the available accommodation on ground floor in the same house. It is also said that respondent is not having any other alternative suitable accommodation of his own. It is also pleaded that accommodation was remained in possession of the deceased defendant and the appellant for the purpose of residence and for their profession of dancing and singing.

(3.) AFTER framing the issues the evidence was recorded and on appreciation of it, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court by virtue of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that earlier judgment and decree between the parties are binding but simultaneously findings on grounds of bona fide genuine requirement, nuisance and requirement for reconstruction of the house were given in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, while the ground of sub-tenancy was decided against the respondent.