LAXMI NARAYAN AND ANOTHER Vs. AJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the landlord having failed to evict the tenant from the godown let out on the ground under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(h), 12(1)(k) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The suit has been dismissed as per judgment and decree dated 1st March, 1996 passed by IInd ADJ to the Court of District Judge. Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 43 -A/80, renumbered as 46 -A/94.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs filed a suit way back in the year 1980 averring that godown was let to the Defendant -Respondent on 1 -4 -1976. Rent payable was Rs. 2,500/ - per annum. Defendant was dealing in food grains and seeds in the beginning of tenancy but subsequently he stopped that business and started stocking Tendu leaves used for making Bidis without permission of the landlord. As the leaves were highly inflammable material, it should have been stored in veranda which was closed from the road side and should not have been stored in Southern veranda which was closed from the road side by only a Jafri of iron plates leaving innumerable holes. Defendant deliberately or negligently stocked Tendu leaves in the year 1979 -80. SDO, Hoshangabad in case No. 101/80 vide order dated 16 -4 -1980. found that stocking of Tendu leaves was dangerous. On 11 -4 -1980 the Tendu leaves stocked in Southern veranda caught fire which immediately spread to the whole godown. In spite of all efforts of Municipal Government to extinguish the fire, it continued for a long period. The fire not only destroyed the Tendu leaves but damaged to the godown building itself to a great extent. The damage to the building was to extent of Rs. 45,000/ -. Defendant had himself set it on fire with ulterior purpose. Thus, Plaintiff claimed the damages to the tune of Rs. 45,000/ -. Defendant was not entitled to stock the leaves which was easily inflammable material, he used the premises for inconsistent purpose. Defendant was also in default of payment of rent, as such ejectment was prayed; reconstruction of godown had become necessary, as such decree has also been prayed under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act, due to nuisance and inconsistent user the Plaintiff claimed for decree under Section 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(k) of the Act. In the year 1984 during pendency of suit godown was again set on fire and has been destroyed completely. Defendant was likely to repair it again with ulterior object though Plaintiff required it for reconstruction.

(3.) IN the written statement Defendant denied the averments contending that owner was Chandrakala Bai not her husband Laxmi Narayan. Laxmi Narayan had no right to seek the ejectment. The godown was taken on rent for storing Tendu leaves in the year 1972 at the rate of Rs. 1500/ - per annum not at the rate of Rs. 2500/ - per annum. At no point to time food grains or oil was stocked, right from beginning Defendant was doing the business of Tendu leave and for that purpose godown was taken on rent. Order was passed by the SDO in ex parte, at the instance of Plaintiff in collusion with Plaintiff's son Hargovind, another suit for ejectment was also filed by wife of Hargovind relating to an adjacent godown. As against the Plaintiff report was lodged by the Defendant of putting fire to the godown. Police had registered a case against Plaintiff at crime No. 253/80 under 436 of Indian Penal Code. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure. Plaintiff Laxmi Narayan and his son Hargovind had obtained anticipatory bail. The damage to Tendu leave worth several lacs was caused to the Defendant; after iron Jafri in the veranda there is wall made of brick, thus, the Defendant was not negligent in stocking Tendu leaves. There was no negligence on his part. He has not done any act which may have been inconsistent with the purpose of tenancy for which he was inducted nor has done any act which is likely to affect adversely the interest of the landlord. It was not possible to put the fire from outside. Plaintiffs were not entitled to obtain decree on any of the ground as claimed in the plaint or for decree of Rs. 45,000/ -. By way of amendment it was incorporated that godown was set to fire by miscreants in the year 1984 owing to the murder of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. As Defendant is Punjabi had godown was also set ablaze.