RAMNATH PATEL Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 9/4/2013 passed by Addl. District Judge, Maihar, District Satna in civil appeal nos.47A/2012 and 19A/2013 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 27/7/2012 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Maihar in civil suit no.38A/2009, whereby Trial Court decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement available under Sec. 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and in civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs and defendants both, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of Trial Court and by negating the ground of bonafide requirement available under Sec. 12(1)(f) of the Act, decreed the suit on the ground of defaults in making payment of rent available under Sec. 12(1)(a) of the Act. Fact remains that the plaintiffs filed the suit on the grounds under Sec. 12(1)(a),(b) &(f) of the Act.

(2.) In short, the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for eviction of the disputed/rented shop with the allegations that the defendant 1- Ramnath Patel was inducted as a tenant in the shop on rent of Rs.500.00 per month, which was later on enhanced to Rs.800.00 per month. It is alleged in the plaint that in spite of issuance of demand notice, the defendant did not pay/deposit the rent and sublet the shop to the defendants 2-3. It is alleged that the suit shop is required bonafidely by the plaintiffs and there is no other alternative accommodation available in the township of Maihar. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that there are no arrears of rent against the defendant and plaintiffs do not require the rented shop for starting the alleged business and there is sufficient alternative accommodation available with the plaintiffs to start the alleged business. It is also contended that the defendant 1 never sublet the shop to the defendants 2-3. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.