ANIL KUMAR KUSHWAH Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/03/2010 passed by 10th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1-A/2010 and 2-A/2010 arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 31/07/2009 passed by 8th Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009.

(2.) Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

(3.) The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that he is the owner of a house situated in front of office of INTAK, Tansen Road, Hajira, Gwalior, whose Municipal Corporation No. is 114 and is situated in Ward No. 15. Defendant/respondent was inducted as a tenant of one room situated in the said building on 17/10/2001 on a monthly rent of Rs.500.00 with additional charges of Rs.125.00 for electricity consumption, i.e., total amount of Rs.625.00 per month. Respondent/defendant is using the said room as his office. The tenancy is from 17th of every month till 16th of the succeeding month. Since plaintiff himself was in need of the suit premises, therefore, at the repeated verbal request by defendant, who was well known to him, gave the suit room for a period of six months and it was also assured by defendant that as soon as suitable accommodation is found by him, then he would vacate the suit room within a period of six months. Thereafter, defendant took a U-turn and every time refused to vacate the room on the ground that he could not find any suitable accommodation. In the month of November 2002, when the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit room, then he picked up quarrel and started abusing the plaintiff and pushed him out of the room. It was pleaded by plaintiff that plaintiff is in possession of one dining room and two other rooms in which he, his wife and three children are residing. The youngest son of plaintiff, namely Saujanya, is a student of engineering and since he has no separate room for himself, therefore, he is compelled to sit along with all his family members even for his study purposes, and therefore, it was pleaded that the room in question is bona fide required by the plaintiff for his youngest son. Defendant paid rent of Rs.625.00 per month till 16/11/2002 and stopped depositing the rent thereafter. Defendant had sent an amount of Rs.500.00 towards the rent of one month on 10/12/2002 which was returned back by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant has not paid electricity charges. Thereafter, again on 20/05/2003, defendant sent a money order of Rs.500.00 at the rate of monthly rent of Rs.125.00. Since the amount was not in accordance with the settled rent, therefore, the same was returned back. When the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the entire outstanding settled rent, then he refused to do so. In April 2003, when the plaintiff went to defendant to ask him to vacate the suit room as well as to pay the outstanding amount, then defendant insisted that the plaintiff should alienate the room or should alienate the shop situated in the said building to defendant. When the plaintiff refused to do so, then defendant gave a threat that he is an advocate and the plaintiff will never be in a position to get the suit room vacated from him. Thereafter, defendant, with an intention to harass the plaintiff and his family members, lodged a false report on 07/05/2003 on the ground that plaintiff has tried to disconnect the electricity connection. When the police came to the suit room, then they found that the electricity connection was not disrupted, and accordingly, the police did not take any action. Thereafter, defendant filed a criminal complaint which was pending on the date of filing of the suit (however, it is fairly considered by counsel for parties that the complaint was partially dismissed and in appeal, appellant has been acquitted in toto. Thus, it was claimed that because of the act of defendant, plaintiff has suffered mental agony which falls within the category of Sec. 12(1)(c) of MP Accommodation Control Act. Thus, a suit was filed for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.5625.00, as well as for future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.625.00. The suit was filed on the ground of Ss. 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.