SATISH KUMAR JAIN Vs. DURGA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unsuccessful appellant/defendnat has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-9-1998, passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 23-A/1998, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20-3-1998 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 48-A/93 for eviction against the appellant, has been affirmed by dismissing his appeal.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondents had filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on the grounds available under Sections 12(1)(a), (c), (e) and (h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the arrears of rent, disclaimer of title of the respondents, bona fide genuine requirements and also on requirement for repairing and reconstruction of the entire premises including the tenanted accommodation.

(3.) THAT in view of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the evidence was recorded and on appreciation of it by holding the relationship in between the respondents and appellant as landlord and tenant the suit was decreed by the trial Court on grounds under Sections 12(1)(a), (c), (e) and (h) of the Act along with amount of arrears of rent. On filing the appeal by the appellant the Appellate Court has set aside the finding of the trial Court regarding Section 12(1)(c) of the Act but the appeal was dismissed by upholding the decree on other grounds. Hence, this appeal is preferred at the instance of appellant/tenant.