HAZI MUSA WALI MOHAMMAD Vs. GOGALBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendants under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter the Code for short) against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.95 in Civil Appeal No. 9A/95, passed by Shri Arun Prakash Shrivastava, IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa arising from the judgment and decree dated 25.4.95, passed by Civil Judge Class - II. Khandwa in C.S. No. 8A/1991.

(2.) THE appellant/Firm is the tenant of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit house shown in Schedule - A of the plaint, situate in the city of Khandwa. It is claimed by the respondent No. 1 that she is the owner and the landlady of the suit house. The suit house was taken on rent from the father of the respondent No. 1 by the applicant/Firm. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the ground floor of the house was taken for business and the First floor of the house was taken for the purpose of residence. The agreed rate of rent for the entire house was Rs. 250/ - per month. The tenancy was oral and it started from the first day of the English Calendar month and was liable to be terminated on the last day of the month. It was claimed by the respondent No. 1 that the suit house was required by her for resident and also for starting Kirana business for her son Vinod Kumar as her son was un -employed and he wanted to reside at Khandwa for starting his business. She also claimed mat she has no alternative accommodation in the town of Khandwa. It was further pleaded that the appellant had not paid her rent of Rs. 250/ - for the month of February, 1991 and therefore she claimed the rent for that month. The allegations made in the plaint show that the respondent No. 1 claimed that she required the suit house bonafide u/s 12 (1) (e) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter the Act for short) as there was composite need for resident as well as for business for her son.

(3.) THE trial Court found that the appellant is not liable to pay rent for the month of February 1992 to the respondent No. 1, who was held to be the landlady of the appellant as the rent has already been paid. However, it came to the conclusion that need of the respondent No. 1 is bonafide and that the partners of the appellant/Firm are liable to be evicted. Accordingly a decree for eviction was passed by the trial Court with a direction that the appellant shall continue to pay Rs. 250/ - per month till they are evicted in accordance with law.