PARMESHWARI DEVI Vs. THAKUR NATTHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995, passed by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 16 -A of 1993 arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.2.1990, passed by Eighth Civil Judge. Class -II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 168 -A of 1988. The connected Second Appeal No. 773 of 1995 (Smt. Motia Rani Kohli and others v. Thakur Natthu Singh) involves similar grounds. That second appeal is also disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) THE respondent is the landlord of the House No. 630, Napier Town, Jabalpur. The appellants are his tenants of a portion of the above mentioned house. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 168 -A of 1988 against the appellants claiming that they are liable to be evicted from the portion of house occupied by them in the capacity of tenants. The portion of house was detailed by the respondent, by making it in red colour in the plaint -map. The respondent raised in his plaint the grounds covered by Sections 12 (1)(a), 12 (i)(e) and 12 (1)(h) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Hence forth, 'the Act').

(3.) THE respondent claimed in his plaint that he was entitled to evict the appellants on the ground covered by Section 12(1)(e) of 'the Act'. For this purpose, the respondent took the express plea that the portion occupied by the appellants was required by him bona fide for himself and for the members of his family. The respondent did not deny that he had an alternative accommodation in his possession. He however, raised a plea that the house occupied by him was not reasonably suitable for himself and the members of his family. His plea was the accommodation had only two living rooms besides kitchen, latrine and bathroom. He had two grown up sons and a daughter besides his wife. The alternative accommodation was too small for himself and the members of his family. This was the initial plea of the respondent. Subsequently, by an amendment in the plaint, as per order dated 12.10.1983, the respondent further stated that a portion of the house vacated by B.M. Sethi and another tenant is not suitable for the occupation of the respondent, because it is in the basement and remains damp and dark. It has not been let out and a servant of respondent was looking after it. It was also pleaded that this basement portion of the house is not in accord with the status of the respondent.