RAM SWAROOP MAHESHWARI Vs. JAI PRAKASH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant against judgment and decree dt. 17 -4 -2003 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Suit No. 103 -A/02 whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dt. 26 -8 -2002 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 59 -A/02.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents -plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of suit shop alleging that the plaintiff No. 1 Jai Prakash was the owner of the suit house consisting the suit shop situated at Hospital Road, Madhavganj, Vidisha. It was alleged that plaintiff No. 2 let out the suit shop to the defendant but later on the house was given to the plaintiff No. 1 by way of family arrangement arrived at orally on 1 -1 -1983, the same was reduced in writing vide memorandum dt. 7 -2 -1983 (Ex.P -8), the plaintiff No. 1 became the owner of the house. In respect of arrears of rent, it was alleged that defendant was a tenant of Rs. 350/ - per month and despite notice no rent was paid by the defendant. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 1 required the suit shop for starting hotel business in it along with a portion occupied by Arjun Das and for that he had no other alternative accommodation for that purpose. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant had closed the suit shop for last 10 years and was not carrying any business therein as such ground under Clause (d) of sub -section (1) of section 12 of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction was attracted. The plaintiff further urged that the defendant had sub -letted the suit shop to so many persons from time to time and claimed eviction under Clause (b) of sub -section (1) of section 12 of the 'Act'.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement denied that he was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 350/ - per month but stated that he was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/ -per month and suit house was taken for residential and non -residential purpose from the plaintiff No. 2 and there was no partition or any document was filed to show that the plaintiff No. 1 was the owner of the property.