PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant/tenant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2/5/2014 in Civil Appeal No.8 -A/2009 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 28/2/2009 in civil suit No.144 -A/2008. Plaintiff/landlord's suit for eviction has been decreed with further relief of payment of arrears of rent from March, 2003 at the rate of Rs.900/ - per month up -till the date of delivery of possession.

(2.) For want of notification under Section 1(3) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act in relation to the area covering Chanderi for applicability of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the Courts below have held that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not applicable to the instant case. There is no challenge to this finding by defendant/tenant. Consequently, the plaintiff/landlord is not required to establish grounds of eviction as contemplated under the aforesaid Act and could file a suit for eviction of the tenant provided a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been served upon the defendant terminating tenancy and seeking eviction. Besides, the tenancy is established. In the instant case, plaintiff issued a registered notice dated 29/10/2003 for termination of tenancy from 30/11/2003 calling upon the defendant/tenant to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent. The aforesaid notice was refused by defendant as per the endorsement on the envelop and thereafter neither the suit premises was vacated nor arrears of rent was paid, therefore, the instant suit was filed on the premise that the defendant/tenant is occupying three rooms and kitchen on the second floor of the house owned by plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Tenancy had begun from 1/10/2002 for eleven months on rent at the rate of Rs.900/ - per month. The rent agreement was executed on the said date in presence of witnesses. Plaintiff/landlord require the premises for his own use. Defendant had stopped paying rent from February, 2003. That apart, the defendant use to create nuisance, hurl abuses and behave in an unruly manner causing mental agony and disturbance to the plaintiff's family members.

(3.) Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations in toto to the extent of denying ownership right of plaintiff, rent agreement and arrears of rent. Based on aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of evidence, trial court decreed the suit as indicated above. The first appellate court, on appeal, has addressed on six questions mentioned in para 10 of the judgment and elaborately dealt with the contentions advanced by the defendant/tenant by detailed judgment with due advertence to the evidence brought on record and relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Evidence Act. Consequently, the first appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.