NAVNITDAS Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against a judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur dated 11th May 1973, affirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Class I, Burhanpur dated 24th October 1972 decreeing the plaintiff's suit under section 12(1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

(2.) THE facts leading to the appeal shortly stated, are these. The plaintiff Bhagwandas is the Karta of a joint Hindu family owning a non -residential accommodation, situate at Chowk Bazar, Burhanpur. The joint family had not the means to repair the accommodation and, therefore, the plaintiff had to take a loan. The defendant Navnit Das, the in tending tenant, who now runs his 'Apsara Hotel' from the accommodation, agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - to the plaintiff for re -construction of the accommodation which was to be let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/ - for a period of five years, by an agreement dated 9 -7 -1965, Ex -P -1. The agreement recites that out of the stipulated rent of Rs. 80/ -, the defendant would pay Rs, 20/ - per month as rent and the remaining amount of Rs. 60/ - would be adjusted to wards the loan till, the loan remained unpaid. The counter -part executed by the plaintiff undertaking to renovate the accommodation on these terms was executed the same day and is Ex. -D -1. It, however, appears that the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - advanced by the defendant and, therefore, he advanced a further sum of Rs. 2,038/ - for completing the work of re -construction, i.e., in all Rs. 4,038/ -.

(3.) THE defendant not having adhered to the terms of the agreement dated 9 -7 -1965, Ex -P -I, stipulating payment of Rs. 20/ - per month as rent the plaintiff served him with a notice of demand dated 16 -5 -1969. Ex.P -3, requiring him to pay Rs. 560/ - as arrears of rent at that rate from 1 -1 -1967 to 30 -4 -1969. The defendant having failed to comply with the notice of demand, the plaintiff brought the suit for his eviction u/s 12(1) (a) of the Act. In addition, he also claimed his eviction u/s 12 (1) (f) and (o). The Courts below negatived the plaintiff's claim under clauses (f) and (o), but decreed his claim under clause (a) of sub -section (1) of section 12 of the Act.