SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. RAMAKANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree dtd. 8/2/2024 passed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85/2019 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dtd. 30/4/2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 116A/2019 was reversed and based on the bonafide need of the landlord - respondent/plaintiff, the decree for eviction was granted.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in terms of Sec. 12(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961') thereby praying for decree of eviction, payment of arrears of rent and mesne profit. The respondent/plaintiff stated in her plaint that the suit premises was rented to the appellant/defendant on 1/11/1997 on a rent of Rs.1,250.00 per month. The suit property is a residential house comprising ground as well as first floor. Initially, only ground floor was rented to the appellant/defendant. It was further averred that later on the first floor of the suit premises was also rented to the appellant/defendant on 1/1/2000 and the monthly rent was increased to Rs.2,000.00 per month. The rent was later on revised to Rs.4,500.00 per month.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction by stating that the appellant/defendant changed the user of the rented premises by installing a paper cutting machine in the ground floor of the rented premises without permission from the landlord i.e. respondent/plaintiff. As such in terms of Sec. 12(1)(c), the decree of eviction deserves to be passed on this ground alone. It was further averred that the appellant/defendant was asked to evict the suit premises for the reason that the plaintiff has bonafide need of the rented premises for her own use. Apart from this, the default of rent was also pleaded.