GOURI SHANKAR RAJAK Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant/tenant, the appellant herein, is against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 9.7.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 23 -A/2012 by the II Additional District Judge Katni, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2011, passed in Civil Suit No. 52 -A/2010 by the Court of III Civil Judge, Class -II Katni.

(2.) A suit was fled by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/tenant, on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). It was contended that the appellant/defendant was in arrears of rent and even after demand, the same was not paid by him. It was contended that the respondent/plaintiff was in need of the house for the purposes of residence of his son and he was not having any other suitable accommodation within the city. It was also alleged that the house was in dilapidated condition as it was 80 years old and after demolishing the said house, the respondent/plaintiff was intending to construct a house for his son. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that arrears of rent was already paid, there was no default on the part of the appellant/defendant in making payment of rent. It was contended that there were other suitable accommodation available within the city of residence of sons of the respondent/plaintiff. The accommodation from other tenants were got vacated and one house was sold by the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the alleged need of the landlord was not bonafide. The house was not in a dilapidated condition and its reconstruction was not necessary. For the said purpose also, no eviction decree could be passed.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence available on record, it was amply proved that the suitable accommodation was available to the landlord plaintiff/respondent to make arrangements for living of his sons. From the evidence available on record, it is also proved that other accommodations were got vacated by the plaintiff/respondent from other tenants, but insistence was made to get the house vacated so as to let it out on a higher rent. That being so, the bonafide need of the respondent/plaintiff was not made out and, therefore, the decree could not have been granted on this count as well. Since this aspect is not considered by the two Courts below, the evidence is not properly assessed, the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.