RAMGOPAL Vs. SHANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal against a decree for eviction passed against him on the ground contained in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Both the courts below have held that this ground for eviction is made out against him. Hence this further appeal by the defendant tenant.

(2.) The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in a residential accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 only. One of the grounds for eviction pleaded by the plaintiff was his bona fide need which has been negatived by both the courts below so it does not arise for determination in this appeal being a concluded finding of fact. The other ground for eviction which arises for determination in this appeal relates to clause (i). The plaintiff alleged that in March, 1963 during subsistence of the tenancy, the defendant had obtained vacant possession of his own house in the same city, so that he was liable to eviction on the ground contained in clause (i). There is no dispute that the defendant of his own volition sold his house by a registered sale deed dated 16/2/1965 prior to the suit being filed on 1/1/1966. It is on the basis of the sale of his house by the defendant that the availability of the ground under clause (1) is contested by the defendant.

(3.) The only question for determination in this appeal is whether a decree can be passed on the ground contained in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act where the conditions of clause (i) were fulfilled, but the vacant possession of a suitable residence obtained by the tenant was lost by him thereafter so that it was not with him on the date of suit as a result of the voluntary act of the defendant himself. I have no doubt that a decree for eviction under clause (i) can be passed on these facts. I shall now give my reasons for this conclusion: