ALOK AGRAWAL Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 32 of the MP Accommodation Control Act 1961. The appellant Alok Agrawal is aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2013 passed by the XIV Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No.27/2013 whereby the appellant's application under Section 38 of the MP Accommodation Control Act being dismissed by Rent Controlling Authority was upheld. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a tenant in the House No.11 New Bhumi Agrawal Nagar, Indore and he was provided water facility by the respondents owner in the tenancy. However it was illegally removed by the respondents whereby causing danger to the life of the appellant. It was also urged that the appellant was willing to take water connection his own name but the respondents/owner did not give permission to do so. The respondents resisted the application stating that the facility was not closed, it was the appellant, who was not living in the said house and had inducted sub tenant Mr.Indradev Agrawal and the water facility was required by sub tenant. The learned Trial Court examined witnesses and dismissed the application by order dated 21.03.2013 on the ground that water connection has regular water supply from the underground pipeline which was a finding contrary of the facts and the circumstances of the case. The First Appellate Court u/S.31 of the Act also dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 01.10.2013 and hence the Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that opportunity of hearing has been denied by both the Courts below to the present appellant and the Court below had also erred in relying on the report of Revenue Inspector. The opportunity of cross -examination by Revenue Inspector has also not been given to the appellant. And in this light also both the orders of the Courts below were contrary to the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. Besides Counsel vehemently urged that nobody can survive without the life giving support i.e. water and hence the finding recorded by the Courts below were perverse and required to be set aside.

(2.) Consel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the submissions and stating that the appellant has falsely filed the application and findings recorded by both the Courts below establish the fact that the water connection was never stopped and the appellant himself had admitted in his cross -examination in para 7 that there was a separate connection from the Narmada water and facility of boring has also been available. Besides the report of the Revenue Inspector is nothing but spot inspection and Punchnama which was established the fact that the water connection was in working condition. Besides Counsel submitted that there is a categoric findings regarding the fact that the appellant was residing at 10/C Navlakha Complex along with his wife and children and the disputed accommodation was sublet to Mr.Indradev Agrawal. In these circumstances also the case of the appellant was demolished, he had not come to the Court with clean hands. Counsel submitted that proper notice of eviction was given and there is already rent note available which established the fact that it was the accommodation given to rent to the appellant by respondents Alok Agrawal and notices Annexure P/2 of eviction were duly received by the appellant. Counsel has also stated that the appellant has also failed to pay rent for quite some time and arrears are outstanding against him. In this light also Counsel submitted that the appeal deserve to be dismissed.

(3.) On considering the above submissions, I find that factual matrix of the case do not create any sympathy for the appellant. There are concurrent findings against the appellant regarding the water connection being in a running condition and the bona fides of the appellant are in doubt since sub tenancy has been alleged and almost proved the notices have also been received by the appellant. And in this regard also I find that appeal is without merit and deserves a summary burial. The appeal is therefore, dismissed as being without merit. Cost of Rs.1500/ - be paid to the Counsel for the respondents, if certified.