RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. PRASANNA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment decree dated 30-4-02 passed by the district Judge, Katni in C. A. No. 116/01 affirming the judgment-decree dated 28-9-01 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Katni in C. S. No. 174-A/86, defendant/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.

(2.) THE appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) ORIGINAL tenant late Ramsakhe was inducted into the tenancy in the suit shop for non-residential purpose on monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per month by original landlord S. S. Dhanya Kumar Jain. Defendant/appellants and plaintiff/respondents are legal heirs of late Ramsakhe and S. S. Dhanya Kumar Jain. Plaintiff/respondent Prasanna Kumar Jain instituted C. S. No. 174-A/86 before the Civil Judge Class-I, Katni seeking eviction of tenant-defendant/appellant under Section 12 (1) (a), (b), (f), (m) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to "the Act" for short) on the ground that defen-dant/appellant remained in arrears w. e. f. 21-5-78 and did not pay in spite of service of notice of demand. Part of suit shop has been sub-let to Mohandas nanak Ram and without written permission of the plaintiff/respondent made or permitted to be made such construction as has materially altered the suit shop to the detriment of the plaintiff/respondents' interest and is likely to diminish its value substantially. Further the suit shop is bonafide required by the plaintiff/respondents for starting a business of his own and there is no other suitable alternative accommodation of his own available in the city. The suit was resisted by the defendant/appellant stating inter alia that vide agreement dated 2-12-56 (Ex. D-1) the tenancy of the suit shop was created wherein the original tenant late Ramsakhe was permitted to create sub tenancy. Since the sub-tenant continued in possession of a portion of suit shop. Defendants/appellants have never created a new sub tenancy in favour of any person. The suit shop since was let out to Ramsakhe for being used by members of Joint Hindu Family, by erecting temporary partition remained in use and occupation of tenant/appellants for carrying on their respective business. No construction which is likely to materially alter the accommodation or in any way diminish its value substantially has been carried out. Defendant/appellants received notice dated 3-11-79 directing them to pay arrears of rent w. e. f. 21-5-78. Plaintiff/respondents instituted the suit on 29-11-79 before the expiry of statutory period of two months. Defendant/appellants promptly deposited the rent on 11-1-80. Plaintiff/respondent does not require the suit shop for starting business of his own as he is busy in his own business of Banking.